Posted on 12/20/2015 3:41:46 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Ever since Trump proposed a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration, he has come under fire from both sides of the aisle, who are claiming it could never work because it is "unconstitutional." Well, several respected law professors have something to say about this that is sure to spark even more controversy. You have to love it!
Many critics of Trump and his 'Muslim ban' have labeled it as bigoted and racist, and have called the plan unconstitutional and against the law.
Some argue that the First Amendment prohibits the government from using religious affiliations as criteria for allowing in immigrants. That is false.
Others say that foreign nationals have no Constitutional rights. That is true.
But now, two of the most highly respected, prominent legal scholars in our country have weighed in, and the Islamo-sympathizers aren't going to like what they have to say.
According to the Daily Caller, Jan C. Ting from Temple University and Eric Posner from the University of Chicago both gave their legal opinion of the moratorium and according to them, the people criticizing Trump have no idea what they're talking about, and over a hundred years of legal precedent backs Trump’s plan.
"No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional," Ting told TheDC. "The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis."
"The statutes are clear: immigration is different from all other aspects of the law," said Ting, who noted that it would be "unlikely" for the Court to reverse 100 years of legal history and grant Constitutional rights to foreigners. "The Supreme Court has ruled we can enact laws against foreign nationals that would not be permissible to apply to citizens. The courts historically have no role in these decisions."
More from the Caller:
He said that the courts have upheld this arrangement as recently as 2015 and that major cases — such as the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirming the constitutionality of then-President Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants in 1980 — have hewed to the viewpoint that Congress and the president can exclude foreigners on any possible basis from America.
The Temple professor specifically cited the ability for the government to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity when it comes to immigration — pointing out that it happens "everyday."
…
Ting also brought up the 1972 Supreme Court case affirming the right of the government to exclude a Belgian Marxist writer from the country due to his intellectual beliefs and which could be precedent applied to those adhering Islamic fundamentalism.
Sean Brown at Mad World News adds that the fourth most-cited legal scholar in the country, Eric Posner, agrees with Ting as well. Posner said that "constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants," and he added the moratorium was "probably not" unconstitutional.
According to Posner, who opposes Trump's moratorium on moral grounds but said that legally, it would be allowed, all Trump would have to prove is that followers of the Muslim faith pose a threat to America. Posner believes that Trump wouldn't have an issue proving his case from a legal perspective and noted that he wouldn't need permission from Congress if he was able to do so.
So, as we continue to hear the constant back and forth over the moratorium and people screaming at the top of their lungs that it would be unconstitutional, it appears just the opposite is true. Two legal scholars, both from liberal backgrounds, said that Trump would be well within his rights to enact such a ban. Short of the Supreme Court making a ruling on the matter, I would say that pretty much settles this debate. Wouldn’t you?
Trump’s campaign will undoubtedly ram this down the crybabies throat very soon.
Maybe he will beat GS with it like he did today lol
Say “aloha,” whackbars!
Bwaaaaaahahahahaahaaaaa
Trump needs to ram this down stupid O’Reilly’s throat. That ass has been trumpeting his all-knowing opinion that it’s unconstitutional since it came up.
Trump bump.
So it is true. The Constitution is not a suicide pact after all.
I seem to remember Rush talking about the jIMMY cARTER ban on Iranians right after Trump made his statement. The media whores have decided not to talk about it. I guess that is because cARTER did it.
O Really has been a non favorite for about 10 yrs. Maybe more, I don’t remember when I last turned him off.
“Trump needs to ram this down stupid O’Reilly’s throat. That ass has been trumpeting his all-knowing opinion that it’s unconstitutional since it came up.”
I learned a long time ago that Blowhard O’Reilly rarely has the facts on his side.
So, according to Posner; if President Trump could prove that Muslims pose a threat to America from a legal standpoint(not hard to do since they’ve murdered thousands of us in cold blood) he wouldn’t need Congress to enact a ban?
It’s too bad someone didn’t tell turncoat traitor Mitch McConnell that before he shot his mouth off about Trump today.
It’s entirely constitutional. And completely impossible to accomplish.
I watched a movie produced this afternoon by Steven Spielberg’s wife on the early days of the IAF, 1948.
Pay attention now....... this is really important......
President Truman issued an order whereby American Jews that went to Israel to fly or fight forfeited their American citizenship.
A guy named Swimmer in LA bought a bunch of WW II surplus transports and by circuitous means sent them to Israel. He lost his citizenship for his efforts in arming the IAF. He went to Israel to live.
President Clinton restored the citizen ship
I don't think he needs to "prove" anything. All he has to do is declare that they are a threat and announce his total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country.
Of course then he needs to go and figure out how to do that. I don't think he's thought that far ahead.
Thereby demonstrating the appropriateness of referring to O'Reilly as "Ted Baxter."
"Good Night, and Good News."
“That ass has been trumpeting his all-knowing opinion that it’s unconstitutional since it came up.”
Common sense would demand that no immigration law could be considered unconstitutional because Constitutional protections apply only to citizens of the United States, not someone in Cattlegap, Egypt.
Go here:
ping to ya
Not watched him for a couple of years and only Megyn Kelly was the show I watched until recently.
Not surprised big mouth is still thinking he knows everything and we should all bow down to the big mouth turd.
This is something we all knew from the beginning. The president has wide powers to prohibit the entry of ANY person or class of persons he sees fit.
The Left uses the falsity as fact that aliens have automatic constitutional rights accorded to them....among other bogus constitutional claims it promulgates as they apply to this critical national issue.
The enemedia repeats this in one spin after another, every day and every night on TV and radio!
Hah! Trump is RIGHT again!!!!
(....but then we knew he would be.....)
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.