He stated quite clearly that he wanted all Muslims interned in concentration camps. This includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Zalmay Khalilzad.
Yeah, and he has clear constitutional precedence to do so in Korematsu v. U.S.
It would take a declaration of war, among other things, to meet the conditions set forth in the opinions of Black and Frankfurter in the Korematsu case. Furthermore, such a plan would require the clearly unconstitutional government intrusion into the religion, as Americans would have to register their faiths with the state before the state could round up the adherents of a particular faith. So, no, Korematsu isn't much of a precedent.
EPWR has stated clearly that his proposal would be modeled on FDR's internment of the Japanese and Germans.
Only recently. He was earlier in favor of concentration camps for all Muslims throughout the country.
You have absolutely no evidence or genuine reason to draw comparison with Hitler.
Save for the fact that he wants camps for all practitioners of a particular faith. FDR's exclusion act, faulty as it was, spared Americans of Japanese descent who lived outside the exclusion zones of California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska.
And specifically what ruling was that exact phrase used in?
The specific phrase is too crude for the Supreme Court. However, it was unchallenged de facto government policy throughout much of the 19th century.
I'm certain he can speak for himself, but I have yet to see him specifically call for the internment of the two persons you name. When I discussed it with him I was left with the impression that he was advocating a policy modelled directly on FDR's program in WWII. Unless he says differently, I'll take that as his intent and consider your comments as hyperbole-laden misportrayals of it.
It would take a declaration of war, among other things, to meet the conditions set forth in the opinions of Black and Frankfurter in the Korematsu case.
And someday we may be forced into that. The point remains though that it's a policy option, and a constitutional one.
Furthermore, such a plan would require the clearly unconstitutional government intrusion into the religion, as Americans would have to register their faiths with the state before the state could round up the adherents of a particular faith.
Not necessarily. Though imperfect, national origin functions remarkably well as a proxy for mahometan in most mahometan countries, and particularly middle eastern ones given the notable absence of substantive religious diversity in those regions. Since the WWII precedent itself was based on national origin (Japan and Germany), a similar system for, say, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Morrocco, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. could function without any religious disclosure.
Only recently. He was earlier in favor of concentration camps for all Muslims throughout the country.
Once again, given your penchant for intentionally misrepresenting your adversaries, I'll have to take his word on it.
Save for the fact that he wants camps for all practitioners of a particular faith.
Certain "faiths" are prone to commit evil, mahometanism being the foremost among them. Simply labelling it a "faith" is not a valid cover for its danger.
However, it was unchallenged de facto government policy throughout much of the 19th century.
Actually that was the executive branch's policy, often made in defiance of the supreme court, i.e. Worcester v. Georgia.