Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
By Hunter Wallace
The New York Times has two fascinating articles about this:
“Philadelphia — DONALD J. TRUMP’S reprehensible call to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States tracks an exam question I’ve been giving my immigration law students since Sept. 11. Would such a proposal be constitutional? The answer is not what you might think — but it also raises the issue of what, exactly, we mean when we say something is “constitutional” in the first place. …”
Dont be so quick to write this off as a publicity stunt. It might actually work:
“WASHINGTON — When Donald J. Trump called on Monday for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” many legal scholars were aghast and said that such a ban would certainly be struck down by courts as blatantly unconstitutional.
But on Tuesday Mr. Trump clarified his proposal, saying that he would exclude only foreign Muslims, not Muslim American citizens who travel abroad and then seek to come home. That distinction, legal specialists said, made it far less likely the courts would strike it down. …”