That has to do with immigration. Since when does ENTERING the country a part of anyone's religious belief?
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
That has to do with immigration. Since when does ENTERING the country a part of anyone's religious belief?
You can ban people involved in Terrorism, but you cant ban the entire religion. You see, there is a difference between being a Muslim and being a terrorist. The fact that the ban would be temporary does not make it more or less constitutional. Its not relevant to the Constitutionality.
You guys rant about how sacred the Constitution is, and I agree. Be consistant in your belifes, have some integrity!
If its based on religion, special licensing would be unconstitutional.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
The 1st Amendment protects citizens, residents, and guests. Which of those categories do prospective immigrants and refugees fall under? Based upon your logic, Gerud, we can't ban people from a specific country because it would violate their 14th Amendment rights.
Sounds to me more like a national security concern. Not surprised many make it out to be something it isn't.
Beside the point. You stated that "machine guns" were banned, I pointed out that they were not.
But visa denial establishes nothing nor does it prevent citizens or legal aliens from free exersize.
The fly in the ointment is identifying "a muslim".
So you don't believe in national borders and national security concerns?
No, the 14th Equal Protection clause only applies to those "within a states jurisdiction"
I never said machine guns were banned, I said that I believed they could Constitutionally be banned.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there is no qualifying phrase in the 2nd Amendment, despite your desire to have it there.
There can be no 'right' if there's a requirement that must be met first. Also, what kind of 'arms' do you think were contemplated when the framers debated the 2nd Amendment?
lastly, from the following quotes that were spoken to the new citizens of our nation, do you think they were ratifying an Amendment that would allow congress any power over arms?
There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)
The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE
The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. — Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. — Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. — Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. — Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
And what about AFTER ratification? what do you think the people understood regarding the 2nd Amendment when commentaries said things like this?????
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
SmarterthanYou
rebel
try to buy one manufactured after May 19, 1986.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Have you read that? It's fairly specific on who may or may not be denied a visa.
What it says is that if someone is known to be a terrorist, or known to have engaged in terrorist activities, or had military training with a terrorist group, then they may be denied a visa. And it goes on to define that "terrorist" means.
It in no way authorizes the banning of the issuance of visas, temporarily or permanently, based solely upon the religion of a person.
You are 100% wrong in your assertion that religion is enough to trigger the suspension of visa issuance.
(Sigh) We've been over this before. While I don't want to derail the thread too much with this sideline, I guess it's necessary to say it again.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment (indeed all of them) are "not without limitation."
Justice Scalia (who is certainly not know for being very liberal at all - conservatives look at him and say, "WOW, he's conservative"), who wrote the majority Opinion on 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, had this to say:
And...
And...
And so on.
NOW can we get back to the OTHER straw argument going on in this thread?
I know your argument, I disagree.
What constitutional protections does someone not here and never having been here have? Are you saying that because someone has a desire to come to the U.S. they have rights under the U.S. Constitution?
You can travel freely within the country all you want. This isn't about within but from without. Big difference.
It must? According to you? Hate to break it to you but someone that has never been to this country doesn't have constitutional protections because they want to come here no matter how much you may think they do.