• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump calls hillary 'america's merkel'

SailaWay;1066208213you are wrong AGAIN... and rat trpped again... christians are non believers they are the infidels...... and their book orders them to be killed.... get some help with learning RAT-TRAPPED AGAIN[/QUOTE said:
Look up dhimmi and People of the Book. And then cite the verses that say they should be killed. And then explain how Christians and Jews are allotted seats in the Iranian parliament and not killed.

Are you claiming you have a better understanding of the Quaran than the Ayatollah? Really?
 
No need. Ammendment 1 to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......"
Any law restricting immigration based on religion would be a law respecting an establishment of religion.

That is false. Nowhere in any of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause cases has the Court even so much as hinted that the clause means anything like what you claim. The document is the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitution of The Planet.

None of the protections of the First Amendment applies to aliens who have not entered U.S. territory. Congress can make laws excluding any aliens for whatever reasons it sees fit--including that the American people do not want persons of their religion in this country. And the Supreme Court is very likely to defer to Congress when it acts to exclude aliens, as the Court itself has made clear.

Is your Establishment Clause bizarreness the newest thing some leftist website has ginned up to try to help Islamist aliens, or did you concoct it all on your own? The favorite mindlessness on this subject so far seems to be that the part of Article Vi, sec. 3 which prohibits a religious test for federal officials would apply to a law excluding Muslims, which of course is plainly false.
 
Last edited:
How about the final phrase of Article VI? "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I disagree with that, I don't think anyone that believes in absurd fairy tales is sane or competent to hold any office. I would like to see religion wiped from existence.
 
I disagree with that, I don't think anyone that believes in absurd fairy tales is sane or competent to hold any office. I would like to see religion wiped from existence.


religion that goes against science brings destruction

and democracy is against science laws and why the wise founders did NOT let the UNWISE VOTE
 
The "policy" is sheer insanity. Seriously, just when I thought the guy could not possibly display even less understanding of the Constitution, let alone less intelligence.

Gay rights? Seriously?

The guy who wants to keep Muslims out of the US wants to test people based on their views about religious freedom?

Are we going to block tourists from visiting the US because they believe in equal rights for women?

That's it, I'm donating $25 to a non-Trump campaign every time he goes off the rails like this. At the current rate, I expect to be broke by October. :D

Just out of curiosity, how would you prevent terrorists from coming into our country? How would you stop the illegals coming in from our southern borders? It's easy to criticize but if you have a better solution - let it be known.
 
That is false. Nowhere in any of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause cases has the Court even so much as hinted that the clause means anything like what you claim.
Because the topic has never come up. No law requiring a religious test for immigrants has ever been passed

[wuoyr]None of the protections of the First Amendment applies to aliens who have not entered U.S. territory..[/QUOTE]
No one is saying otherwise. The establishment clause is a restriction on Congress. CONGRESS cannot pass ANY law that respects an establishment of religion.


What part of "any" do you think means "except to restrict immigrants of an objectionable religion?
 
This again?

The Constitution literally states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means Congress cannot pass a law stating "Muslims are not allowed to immigrate to the US" or "Muslims will not be granted tourist visas." The nationality of the subject is irrelevant; thus, Congress is explicitly barred from applying that type of criteria.

Rubbish. Nowhere in any of its Establishment Clauses decisions has the Court ever suggested the clause means anything like what you assert. Congress can exclude any alien, any time, for any reason whatever.

The Executive has latitude, but it is obviously not unlimited -- as shown by Obama not being able, with the wave of a pen, to grant green cards to every currently unauthorized immigrant in the US, or seriously delay deportation proceedings.

Congress, and not the Executive Branch, has authority to make immigration laws.

Any "no Muslim" rule would be met with a wide variety of challenges.

What of it? The Supreme Court has made clear, more than once, that it defers very strongly to Congress in matters regarding the exclusion of aliens.

And of course, from a practical perspective, it's a non-starter. We already do extensive background checks on people who want to immigrate, including refugees; how will asking their religion change anything about that process? If someone says they converted to Christianity 2 months before applying, are they now exempt from the rule? Tourists can get 6-month visas, are we now going to require they undergo 2 years of background checks, including verifying their religion, before allowing them to enter the US? Madness.

I'm not concerned with whether Mr. Trump's original proposal to exclude all Muslims would be wise policy. I am concerned with refuting uninformed assertions that doing that somehow would violate the Constitution. The moment he made that proposal, which I do not agree with, collectivists leaped to the defense of their Islamist pals with ginned-up constitutional claims meant to gull the gullible. The fact they both loathe the U.S. makes them natural allies.

Even Trump's staff understands this to a marginal extent, which is why they shifted from "No Muslims!" to "nobody from nations of our choosing," which is ethically depraved, but is Constitutionally viable and has actual precedents.

A federal law enacting his original proposal would not have violated anything in the Constitution. The Article VI argument was mindless enough, but this Establishment Clause argument is--it that's possible--even dumber. Please show us where, in all its Establishment Clause jurisprudence, starting with Everson in 1947, the Court has ever even implied that that clause means anything like what you are asserting. And whatever Congress might make its basis for a law excluding aliens, the Supreme Court almost certainly would not question it. As Justice Frankfurter once noted in a concurring opinion,

"The conditions of entry for every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds, on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control . . . ." Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).
 
Because the topic has never come up. No law requiring a religious test for immigrants has ever been passed


No one is saying otherwise. The establishment clause is a restriction on Congress. CONGRESS cannot pass ANY law that respects an establishment of religion.

Now you are conflating the religious test of Article VI, sec.3 with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Maybe you can't decide which is a less laughable basis for your assertion that a law excluding aliens because of their religion would be unconstitutional. You still have not provided any legal authority to support either bizarre theory--nor can you.

No federal law excluding aliens on the basis of their religious beliefs would be a law respecting an "establishment of religion." I've read all the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause decisions, starting with the first one, Everson v. Board, and nowhere in any of them has the Court ever said anything that supports your assertion.
 
Last edited:
Because the topic has never come up. No law requiring a religious test for immigrants has ever been passed

[wuoyr]None of the protections of the First Amendment applies to aliens who have not entered U.S. territory..
No one is saying otherwise. The establishment clause is a restriction on Congress. CONGRESS cannot pass ANY law that respects an establishment of religion.


What part of "any" do you think means "except to restrict immigrants of an objectionable religion?[/QUOTE]

see pingy you need to let matchlight help you understand things

and get some help in understanding about what christianity has done compared to muslims

check the facts on what has made progress for the world

////////////////////

A series of developments, in which reason won the day, gave unique shape to Western culture and institutions. And the most important of those victories occurred within Christianity. While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth.

/////


see this is why there must be a high wisdom test for voters.. because low IQ's cannot see truth as well
 
Just out of curiosity, how would you prevent terrorists from coming into our country?
I'd tell people to wake up.

• The overwhelming majority of terrorists in the US were born here, or at the minimum radicalized here. Tim McVeigh, the Weather Underground, right-wing militias, Omar Mateen, the Tsarnevs, Syed Farook....

The idea that you can stop terrorism by stopping Muslim immigrants -- or throw every Muslim out of the US -- is beyond absurd. It will not work. "Fortress America" is a xenophobe's pipe dream.

• Terrorism is a tactic, not a religion or ideology. You can't stop every lone wolf terrorist with suicidal tendencies and access to firearms (or a truck). Even if we lived in a locked-down police state, you can't stop every nutjob who drives around and assassinates random people whilst hidden in the trunk of his car.

• When existential threats do not actually exist, humans manufacture them anyway. The reality is that terrorism doesn't even rank as a cause of death in the US. This does not mean we should ignore terrorism -- obviously we don't want weekly repeats of 9/11 -- only that its importance, and the policy recommendations proposed, are vastly out of proportion to the nature of the problem.

• Terrorism operates by causing overreactions and overreach. While we do want to protect ourselves, high-profile reactions like a major Presidential candidate declaring "No more Muslims!" or suggesting that ISIS represents Islam plays right into the terrorists' goals.

• Terrorist movements almost never succeed. They tend to burn out, often losing support as they fail to achieve their goals, or take actions their own supporters do not tolerate. The very reason groups adopt terrorism is because they are locked into asymmetric warfare with a significantly more powerful opponent that they cannot beat.

This is not to say "do nothing." Rather, it's to say "keep it in perspective, don't panic, don't wound yourself more than the terrorists ever can by overreacting."


How would you stop the illegals coming in from our southern borders?
We're talking about immigrants now? Really?

OK, I'll tell you. But you really won't like it.

Hermetically sealing the border is another xenophobic pipe dream that doesn't work. The reality is that as long as the US offers a strong enough economic incentive, people will come to the US to work. We could throw billions upon billions at the southern border, and not stop unauthorized immigration.

To wit: Over the years, we have actually gotten more effective at policing the southern border, but this hasn't had the effect you might expect. In the past, unauthorized immigrants would "round-trip" -- frequently crossing the border to visit family, or to go home when agricultural labor wasn't needed. Better border patrols now means people come to the US and stay. It has also produced a thriving criminal market and interest in border crossings.

It also merely shifts who comes to the US. Most unauthorized immigrants coming into the US these days are not, in fact, Mexicans; they're Asians. African immigration is on the rise. (Asians Now Outpace Mexicans In Terms of Undocumented Growth - The Atlantic)

Ironically, all the screaming about immigration is happening at a time when the unauthorized immigration population is slightly declining. This is almost certainly not because the southern border is tougher to cross, or because Arpaio thinks he's a bad-ass, or because of immigration enforcement. It's because the US economy was in a severe recession for years, and unemployment was high, which reduced the economic incentives to come to the US.

And of course, the real issue is that you're begging the question, and assuming that I support draconian immigration laws in the first place. I don't.

I do support limits, but I believe the limits at this time fail because they are arbitrary and unrealistic. Locking down each nation to a set percentage of the total, in particular, makes absolutely no sense. The limits need to be much higher, and we need to have better options for temporary worker visas. I might add that we know people will take high risks and pay lots of money to reside in the US. Why let coyotes and cartels gain the advantage from this? Instead, we should levy residence fees, which go into general tax revenues. We can also deny them access to government services, such as AFDC or subsidized housing.


It's easy to criticize but if you have a better solution - let it be known.
lol

Sorry, that's actually not how it works.

Even if you don't accept my particular solutions, the reality is that locking down America is impossible, and the attempts will backfire in all sorts of ways. Nothing about my positive proposals mitigates the facts.
 
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (CBSNewYork/AP) — Donald Trump called for a new ideological test for admission to the United States in a foreign policy address he delivered in the swing state of Ohio on Monday.

The Republican presidential nominee said he wants immigration applicants vetted on their stance on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. The policy would represent a significant shift in how the U.S. manages entry into the country.
Trump: ‘The Time Is Overdue To Develop A New Screening Test’ « CBS New York

Thin-skinned name-calling bully calls opponent names?

Meh.
 
Thin-skinned name-calling bully calls opponent names?

Meh.

Nevertheless, it's a brilliant idea and should be implemented immediately. But since obozo want s to destroy America, along with his butt buddy George Soros, it ain't gonna happen. btw...Soros is Hillary's but buddy also.
 
Rubbish. Nowhere in any of its Establishment Clauses decisions has the Court ever suggested the clause means anything like what you assert. Congress can exclude any alien, any time, for any reason whatever.
lol.... That's like saying "because Congress is empowered to create a postal service, it can violate the rest of the Constitution when crafting those laws, and skip judicial review. So who wants some slave mail carriers?"

Nothing in §8 gives Congress anywhere near that kind of power. I.e. it is screamingly obvious that Congress almost certainly cannot pass a law saying "No Muslims may enter the US."

There aren't any rulings yet, because no one has actually been insane and/or stupid enough to actually pass such a law.


Congress, and not the Executive Branch, has authority to make immigration laws.
Yeah, about that:

Congress has delegated substantial authority to the Executive, as shown by Carter's reactions to the Iranian hostage crisis. He ordered all Iranians in the US on student visas to report to US immigration officials, or be deported; he also ordered a stop to renewals or new issues of visas to Iranians. Since Congress almost certainly cannot pass an anti-Muslim law, the more likely option would be an assertion of Executive power.

A President could almost certainly deny all visas from Syria, or issue an order not to admit any Muslims. The former is far more likely to survive court challenges than the latter, and this has almost certainly has influenced the Trump campaign's policy proposal.


Please show us where, in all its Establishment Clause jurisprudence, starting with Everson in 1947, the Court has ever even implied that that clause means anything like what you are asserting.
Again: No one has ever tried to pass a law, or use executive powers, to exclude a specific religion.

It also isn't much of a leap to say that an explicit bar on Congress making laws that establish a religion is in a completely different category than limiting immigration by nation, or even barring all immigration from a specific nation. One is explicitly barred in the Constitution, the other is not.


"The conditions of entry for every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds, on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control . . . ." Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).
lol... Yes, let's pluck a rather typical assertion of judicial restraint by Frankfurter. In the concurrence. That none of the other Justices joined.

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy was a rather cowardly ruling issued while the US was in the paroxysms of panic over the Soviet Union, and when civil rights were throughly slammed into the sideboards. They may not have had much of a choice, as the political consequences of the counterfactual can never be accurately assessed; but I certainly wouldn't bet on a repeat, let alone a ruling that goes significantly further in reach.

By the way, if you bothered to read the majority ruling lately, it did not say "all immigration law is exempt from the Constitution's own articles and judicial review." What it said was "the First Amendment does apply, but not in this particular case, because advocating the violent overthrow of the government is not protected speech." It also asserts the importance of due process rights, and found those rights were not violated.

What can I say, I find that rationale slightly more compelling, and consistent with the Constitution, than Frankfurter radically eschewing the Court's responsibilities and declaring "the SCOTUS must agree with every immigration law passed by Congress." At a minimum, I'm quite confident that a ban on all Muslim immigration would meet with a court that is not packed with adherents of judicial restraint any time soon.

I'm also curious, do you agree with Frankfurter about judicial restraint in general, or only when it happens to suit you?
 
I.e. it is screamingly obvious that Congress almost certainly cannot pass a law saying "No Muslims may enter the US."

That is only obvious to you. If it were that obvious to anyone else, you wouldn't feel the need to try to sell your pap by starting with "lol," adding the word "screamingly," and italicizing "cannot."

There aren't any rulings yet, because no one has actually been insane and/or stupid enough to actually pass such a law.

In other words, you can't cite any legal authority whatever to support your bizarre theory that excluding aliens from U.S. territory solely because of their religion would somehow violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Leftists routinely try to peddle nonsense such as you are trying to peddle here, apparently hoping that if they repeat it enough times, people who are not informed about constitutional law will start to believe it. They are desperate to believe that their gauzy notions of transnational law and world government are fact, when they are only fantasy. They loathe the United States, even though many of them are taking up space here, and they would like to deny the American people the right to decide who gets to enter their country. Nothing is more basic to national sovereignty than defensible borders, and that is the very reason leftists do not want this country to have them.

As the Court has discussed in several cases, the degree to which the Constitution applies to aliens increases as their presence in and attachment to the United States increases. But it does not apply to them at all if they have never set foot on U.S. soil. It is, after all, the Constitution of the United States--not some imaginary "Constitution of The Planet." In particular, not one of the protections of the Bill of Rights has ever been applied, in any Supreme Court decision, to any alien who has not yet entered U.S. territory.

The Establishment Clause concerns the establishment of an official religion for the United States. The Establishment Clause may well be a federalism provision the states insisted on--six of them still had official religions in 1791--to prevent the newly formed United States from interfering with their right to make religious establishments. Justice Thomas, in particular, has made the case for that interpretation, although other justices had suggested it decades earlier.

Whether the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the U.S. from declaring a national religion, or also to prevent various states from declaring official religions, is controversial. But nowhere in all its decisions interpreting that clause has the Supreme Court ever so much as implied that it had the slightest thing to do with prohibiting any federal law that discriminated against aliens on the basis of their religion. I have never seen any lawyer or law professor who understands constitutional law suggest anything so silly. You have to go to leftist propaganda websites to see drivel like that--or spend some time on sites like this one watching people who pretend to understand constitutional law concoct it.
 
but their book stops the rights given under the constitution.... a religion can come UNLESS they violate the number 1 law which is stopping the rights of people..... when they pass out their holy book they are passing out intentional crimes against the constitution.. that type religion goes AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

So then those who believe the Bible is the word of their god should be banned too?

Not for nothin', have you ever actually read that thing?
 
Nevertheless, it's a brilliant idea and should be implemented immediately. But since obozo want s to destroy America, along with his butt buddy George Soros, it ain't gonna happen. btw...Soros is Hillary's but buddy also.

Yet somehow I get the impression you expect to be taken seriously.
 
That is only obvious to you. If it were that obvious to anyone else, you wouldn't feel the need to try to sell your pap by starting with "lol," adding the word "screamingly," and italicizing "cannot."



In other words, you can't cite any legal authority whatever to support your bizarre theory that excluding aliens from U.S. territory solely because of their religion would somehow violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Leftists routinely try to peddle nonsense such as you are trying to peddle here, apparently hoping that if they repeat it enough times, people who are not informed about constitutional law will start to believe it. They are desperate to believe that their gauzy notions of transnational law and world government are fact, when they are only fantasy. They loathe the United States, even though many of them are taking up space here, and they would like to deny the American people the right to decide who gets to enter their country. Nothing is more basic to national sovereignty than defensible borders, and that is the very reason leftists do not want this country to have them.

As the Court has discussed in several cases, the degree to which the Constitution applies to aliens increases as their presence in and attachment to the United States increases. But it does not apply to them at all if they have never set foot on U.S. soil. It is, after all, the Constitution of the United States--not some imaginary "Constitution of The Planet." In particular, not one of the protections of the Bill of Rights has ever been applied, in any Supreme Court decision, to any alien who has not yet entered U.S. territory.

The Establishment Clause concerns the establishment of an official religion for the United States. The Establishment Clause may well be a federalism provision the states insisted on--six of them still had official religions in 1791--to prevent the newly formed United States from interfering with their right to make religious establishments. Justice Thomas, in particular, has made the case for that interpretation, although other justices had suggested it decades earlier.

Whether the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the U.S. from declaring a national religion, or also to prevent various states from declaring official religions, is controversial. But nowhere in all its decisions interpreting that clause has the Supreme Court ever so much as implied that it had the slightest thing to do with prohibiting any federal law that discriminated against aliens on the basis of their religion. I have never seen any lawyer or law professor who understands constitutional law suggest anything so silly. You have to go to leftist propaganda websites to see drivel like that--or spend some time on sites like this one watching people who pretend to understand constitutional law concoct it.

The question is NOT whether Congress can pass a law on immigration. It is NOT whether or not aliens are protected by the Constitution. The question is whether or not Congress can pass a law that favors one religion over another or specifically targets one religion. It makes no difference to whom it applies...they can make no such law.

The Establishment Clause does NOT require that anyone's rights be violated to be a violation:
From ENGEL v. VITALE, (1962)
"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.
'

The EXISTENCE of such a law is unconstitutional, regardless of effect.
 
The question is NOT whether Congress can pass a law on immigration. It is NOT whether or not aliens are protected by the Constitution. The question is whether or not Congress can pass a law that favors one religion over another or specifically targets one religion. It makes no difference to whom it applies...they can make no such law.

The Establishment Clause does NOT require that anyone's rights be violated to be a violation:
From ENGEL v. VITALE, (1962)
"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.

Engel v. Vitale is completely irrelevant to this question, and so is every other Establishment Clause decision the Supreme Court has ever handed down, from Everson on. Only by the wildest stretch of an imagination uninformed by any knowledge of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence could a federal immigration law excluding Muslims on the basis of their religion be conceived of as a law "respecting an establishment of religion." No such law would have anything whatever to do with establishing an official religion. Everyone, including the Muslims excluded, could continue to believe in whatever religion they liked.

The American people can exclude any alien, any time they please, for any reason they please, no matter how arbitrary or bigoted anyone may consider it, and they do not have to justify their decision to one damned soul.

One thing I'm glad to see is that leftist propaganda has become so stunningly dumb. First it was the laughable Article VI, sec. 3 argument that a ban on religious tests for federal officials somehow applied to this. Now it seems to be the equally laughable argument that Trump's original proposal would somehow violate the Establishment Clause. To be effective, as Goebbels and the KGB knew, propaganda has to contain at least some plausible kernel to gull the gullible. Trying to peddle slop that doesn't even pass the laugh test is a sign of just how desperate collectivists are to cover the backsides of the Islamists they constantly are holding out the crying towel for.
'
 
Yet somehow I get the impression you expect to be taken seriously.

Good. I should be. The vetting process is wholly inadequate and needs to be upgraded big time!

The question is NOT whether Congress can pass a law on immigration. It is NOT whether or not aliens are protected by the Constitution. The question is whether or not Congress can pass a law that favors one religion over another or specifically targets one religion. It makes no difference to whom it applies...they can make no such law.

The Establishment Clause does NOT require that anyone's rights be violated to be a violation:
From ENGEL v. VITALE, (1962)
"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.
'

The EXISTENCE of such a law is unconstitutional, regardless of effect.

Then let's find another way...throw out the religion aspect and vet them properly like anyone else.

Every immigrant coming into America should be vetted as thou he/she were going to meet the President, face to face!
 
Engel v. Vitale is completely irrelevant to this question, and so is every other Establishment Clause decision the Supreme Court has ever handed down, from Everson on. Only by the wildest stretch of an imagination uninformed by any knowledge of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence could a federal immigration law excluding Muslims on the basis of their religion be conceived of as a law "respecting an establishment of religion." No such law would have anything whatever to do with establishing an official religion. Everyone, including the Muslims excluded, could continue to believe in whatever religion they liked.

The American people can exclude any alien, any time they please, for any reason they please, no matter how arbitrary or bigoted anyone may consider it, and they do not have to justify their decision to one damned soul.

One thing I'm glad to see is that leftist propaganda has become so stunningly dumb. First it was the laughable Article VI, sec. 3 argument that a ban on religious tests for federal officials somehow applied to this. Now it seems to be the equally laughable argument that Trump's original proposal would somehow violate the Establishment Clause. To be effective, as Goebbels and the KGB knew, propaganda has to contain at least some plausible kernel to gull the gullible. Trying to peddle slop that doesn't even pass the laugh test is a sign of just how desperate collectivists are to cover the backsides of the Islamists they constantly are holding out the crying towel for.
'


OUTSTANDING POST!!! :applaud:applaud
 
I bet six months ago The Asssassinator-in-Chief didn't even know who Merkel is.
 
Engel v. Vitale is completely irrelevant to this question, and so is every other Establishment Clause decision the Supreme Court has ever handed down, from Everson on. Only by the wildest stretch of an imagination uninformed by any knowledge of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence could a federal immigration law excluding Muslims on the basis of their religion be conceived of as a law "respecting an establishment of religion."
Leaving that aside for the moment, you had previously stated that banning Muslims would not be unconstitutional because aliens not yet admitted have no Constitutional protection.

Do you or do you not agree with the Engel decision that specific violation of rights is NOT a requirement in Establishment Clause cases?
In other words do you agree that the ONLY consideration is whether a law forbidding Muslims violates the Establishment Clause and NOT whether anyone's free exercise is infringed?

We need to resolve that part first before discussing possible Establishment clause violations.
 
HERE is what makes merkel a very bad leader

Merkel see's germany's problem which is a big imbalance of young to old... and she does not address the CAUSE and does not try to stop the CAUSE.. and the Cause is liberalism .. abortions and gays not having kids..... she covers up the CAUSE and tries to solve the problem with bringing in the young to help the balance ... BUT BUT BUT she is bringing lower IQ people and with that a different culture to go with low IQ's ... so merkel has just destroyed germany by not telling germany the cause and the solution which is STOP the abortions and stop the liberalism

Do you expect me to take you seriously with bs like this?
 


YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (CBSNewYork/AP) — Donald Trump called for a new ideological test for admission to the United States in a foreign policy address he delivered in the swing state of Ohio on Monday.

The Republican presidential nominee said he wants immigration applicants vetted on their stance on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. The policy would represent a significant shift in how the U.S. manages entry into the country.
Trump: ‘The Time Is Overdue To Develop A New Screening Test’ « CBS New York
Since we're comparing our candidates to German leaders...

...nah... too easy. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom