Trump Calls for complete shutdown of muslims immigrating to America
- Thread starter SmilinJack
- Start date
Shall make no law doing either of those things. Specifically listing a religion that is "verboten" in any law is making a law that impedes the free exercise of religion.
We make the law against murder regardless of the religion. If the law was religious specific it would be unconstitutional.
Almost correct. In order for it to be constitutional it would have to be a law without religion as an aspect, as in our example (no people from this specific region).
They can make no laws against a specific religion as that violates the establishment clause, it would work to establish approved religions that are "okay" and establish a religion that is "bad" per Congress. It is a different violation of the 1st but still a violation of the same Amendment.
Indeed. We understand that you think Trump's plan is bad, you've stated it before.
I am simply pointing out why it is also unconstitutional. This attempt to "shame" me by saying "I thought you were better than this" falls on deaf ears. The Constitution is nearly a religious experience for me. I believe in it, that it should be followed deliberately and with forethought, even when I think we may be taking on risk.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
liar
I hope it dissolves, and am still with you that I expect it will, but what if? Are you not disappointed that your team currently has 30-40% so excited by this fools racism that they are choosing to ignore his lack of capability?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Of course it does. People who visit the country on temporary work assignments or tourists, for example, can freely practice their religion while here.
For all of you fearful types, how well did banning the practice of religion go in the USSR? It just went underground. Is that what you want to happen with Islam?
But is he not intelligent enough to see that he is not applying for a job in a board room? If a president behaves that way it is harmful to the nation. 30-40% of Republicans call him a good leader, throwing out outlandish ideas, then defending them to the end refusing to admit they were dumb is not good leadership.
A good leader can be wrong, can make mistakes, can even do something foolish, but they must admit it if they want to move forward.
Spoken like a true Con Law Professor.
evince
Truthmatters
you party screams all the time about how much they hate government you fucking lyi8ng piece of shit.
the constitution is government you traitor to this nation
cawacko
Well-known member
Your last sentence explained why Obama is not a good leader. He gets credit for winning two elections but winning elections alone does not a good leader make.
Do you not see that "absolute rights" are infringed all the time. You will get hauled to jail for inciting a riot or panic, that is an infringement on the right to free speech. You cannot legally own an ICBM, that is an infringement on the right to bear arms, nuclear arms but still arms. If you walk through town naked, you will be arrested even if it was purely expressive conduct.
evince
Truthmatters
According to your previous statement he "backs away" from the statements later. The reality is, as in the boardroom, you defend the statement until it is clearly contraindicated. I think it is habit, one he should break certainly, but habit. Say what is on your mind, then defend it until you are convinced it is the wrong path then start over until you build a plan. I think he is building a plan and policy in the wrong arena. it should be left to boardrooms, if too many of your people agree with you and you don't get the kind of discussion in your campaign meetings to avoid this kind of nonsense then you need to hire some more people to include in your discussions in your campaign meetings.
In my opinion, if Trump wants more than the 23% populist middle grounders to vote for him he'll need to redo his campaign staffers so that he can hear a bit of "no" before he starts into discussions that clearly indicate he is not ready for prime time.
"Absolute rights" is not something I stated, it is something you stated. That is quite literally the definition of a straw man argument. Let's give a real world example: The idea that it is "reasonable" to limit access to one kind of semi-automatic rifle because it looks like a rifle that is fully automatic and used in warfare is proposed as a "reasonable restriction" of a right. It is nonsense, it doesn't do anything at all to restrict access to that type of weapon, just one that looks more scary. It makes nobody safer at all, it is just feel good legislation without regard to reason. It is also a violation of the 2nd Amendment as it clearly restricts my right to own and bear arms.
Prohibiting the entry into this nation of all Muslims is prohibiting the free exercise of Islam. You are not free to exercise Islam in the United States if you are outside the United States.
I do have to agree with you on one point you have made, and that is the right, like all other rights is not absolute. The Supreme Court has been balancing and limiting all rights for over a hundred and fifty years. With regard to Religion and the absoluteness of the right to free exercise type "Lemon Test" into google.
The LEMON TEST is a test the S.Ct. uses to determine 1) if a law is promoting the establishment of religion and 2) when it is okay for a law to curtail the ABSOLUTE right to free exercise of religion.
You should also study the Sherbert test, read Sherbert v. Verner.
This is simply not true, the Supreme Court has held that some restrictions do only apply to people inside the Untied States, but the First Amendment is worded such that it applies to actions of our government as they affect people worldwide.
I agree with the premise of your argument, You can look it up. The day after Obama was REELECTED, I started a post consoling conservatives by pointing out that might does not necessarily mean right. While I believe Obama is a good leader, the argument that he is one because he was reelected, or because his poll numbers are high does not hold water.
Yes, it is true, but not because he was popular or because a lot of people voted for him, but because he was forceful and started the Nation down many much needed paths to change.
He backs away, but never admits he's backing away. Never admits he went too far. I agree with you about a board room, its a great place for discussion and formulating plans. A board room or a closed door campaign strategy or policy session. But I don't think its in Trumps character to ever acknowledge that an idea he had was not perfect, tremendous or excellent.
Yes, but you admit that an argument that was not based on looks but something more reasonable would possibly stand up to Constitutional Muster even though the right to bear arms is, in your words not to be "infringed", right?