Constitutionality of Immigration Bans[W:23]

Here's an article on Trump's proposed immigration ban - and it says that it's constitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/trumps-anti-muslim-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html


Why should any such ban be unconstitutional? If a threat to public safety is correlated with a particular group, then I don't see how said group should get constitutional protection to carry out threats. The ban is not in connection with disliking someone's (religious) ethnicity, it's in dealing with the threat of violence.

Trump isn't expressing dislike for someone's (religious) ethnicity, he's expressing concern about the threat of violence. It's not like he's complaining about the smell of someone's food or about the sound of their music. Violence and terrorism are legitimate concerns, and should not be dismissed as frivolous concerns.

Tell me - when the US State Department issues a Travel Advisory against travel to some dangerous area - isn't this too "judging all people by the actions of extremists"? Yes, it is - but those State Department advisories get issued anyway, based purely on risk assessment. What is the moral difference between a risk-based State Department Travel Advisory which applies to people going out from the US to an area, versus an immigration curtailment which applies to people coming into the US from that area? I see no real difference on a moral or a practical level, and terrorist threats must be dealt with in a practical way.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

As usual, this is completely false.

A few examples of what could theoretically be constitutional:
- "We are rejecting all asylum applications from all Syrians"
- "We're closing the border and not allowing anyone in other than passport holding Americans"

An example of what under no circumstance could be construed as constitutional:
- "All adherents of religion XX are henceforth banned from entering the US."

The government can not blanket ban an entire religion from entering the country. Nevermind the practicality of it, how do you administer a religious test in the first place to determine if one's a Muslim or not? Do we have the TSA baptize everyone coming into the country then make them eat a bag of pork rines just to be safe?

Donald says bigoted, xenophobic nonsense like this because he knows his supporters are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes. It's why he feeds their fear by attacking Mexicans and Muslims. The rest of the country finds the prospect of him actually having a shred of power to be terrifying and also unlikely.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Donald says bigoted, xenophobic nonsense like this because he knows his supporters are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes. It's why he feeds their fear by attacking Mexicans and Muslims. The rest of the country finds the prospect of him actually having a shred of power to be terrifying and also unlikely.

Click to expand...

why does everyone say "his supporters" or "his voter base" before making statements like this? Instead of saying something like "because he knows republicans are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes." or "because he knows conservatives are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes." Why do people always discount his supporters like they're not representative of America? Like hes the leader of a foreign army or something?

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

dimensionallava said:

why does everyone say "his supporters" or "his voter base" before making statements like this? Instead of saying something like "because he knows republicans are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes." or "because he knows conservatives are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes." Why do people always discount his supporters like they're not representative of America? Like hes the leader of a foreign army or something?

Click to expand...

Because he's one candidate of many, and he doesn't represent the entire GOP and especially not all conservatives. Most of the conservatives I know find him and his positions absolutely atrocious. I'm not conservative, but by no stretch of the imagination can you label Donald's particular brand of fascism as representative of American conservatism.

Every country has a fascist subset. Unfortunately in America we only have 2 parties, so the fascists jump in the GOP with the rest of the right.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Because he's one candidate of many, and he doesn't represent the entire GOP and especially not all conservatives. Most of the conservatives I know find him and his positions absolutely atrocious. I'm not conservative, but by no stretch of the imagination can you label Donald's particular brand of fascism as representative of American conservatism.

Every country has a fascist subset. Unfortunately in America we only have 2 parties, so the fascists jump in the GOP with the rest of the right.

Click to expand...

The hell I can't?... they're voting for him aren't they?

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

As usual, this is completely false.

A few examples of what could theoretically be constitutional:
- "We are rejecting all asylum applications from all Syrians"
- "We're closing the border and not allowing anyone in other than passport holding Americans"

An example of what under no circumstance could be construed as constitutional:
- "All adherents of religion XX are henceforth banned from entering the US."

The government can not blanket ban an entire religion from entering the country. Nevermind the practicality of it, how do you administer a religious test in the first place to determine if one's a Muslim or not? Do we have the TSA baptize everyone coming into the country then make them eat a bag of pork rines just to be safe?

Donald says bigoted, xenophobic nonsense like this because he knows his supporters are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes. It's why he feeds their fear by attacking Mexicans and Muslims. The rest of the country finds the prospect of him actually having a shred of power to be terrifying and also unlikely.

Click to expand...

Have you had a chance to verify all that by double checking the Constitution yet ??

After all it is YOUR syllogism (if/then statement).

I should not have to do it for you nor should anyone else just whenever you throw something against the wall and see if it will stick.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

dimensionallava said:

The hell I can't?... they're voting for him aren't they?

Click to expand...

Yes indeed ... one can only HOPE !!!

As Johnny Depp would say in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Because he's one candidate of many, and he doesn't represent the entire GOP and especially not all conservatives. Most of the conservatives I know find him and his positions absolutely atrocious. I'm not conservative, but by no stretch of the imagination can you label Donald's particular brand of fascism as representative of American conservatism.

Every country has a fascist subset. Unfortunately in America we only have 2 parties, so the fascists jump in the GOP with the rest of the right.

Click to expand...

We have not elected another fascist since Nixon.

Maybe we are overdue ?!

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

Riveroaks said:

Have you had a chance to verify all that by double checking the Constitution yet ??

After all it is YOUR syllogism (if/then statement).

I should not have to do it for you nor should anyone else just whenever you throw something against the wall and see if it will stick.

Click to expand...

So just to make sure I understand what your position is, you're saying it actually is constitutional for a president to block any and all members of a certain religion from even entering the country? IE: "Jews no longer welcome, don't even try it."?

Let's assume just for one second that was constitutional. Can you explain in detail how you would identify muslims or adherents of any other black-listed religion as they get off of planes in the US? Have you created some kind of anally administered religious test strip the TSA can use?

dimensionallava said:

The hell I can't?... they're voting for him aren't they?

Click to expand...

Ok. All conservatives believe exactly what Trump does. Does that make you feel better?

Instead of this partisan bull**** you're pushing we should be uniting the moderate republicans towards a free and open society and not trying to lump all of them into the fascist asshole group. Most Americans oppose banning everyone from a religion entering the country. I don't know why you'd like to make that seem like that's representative of any substantial portion of Americans.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Ok. All conservatives believe exactly what Trump does. Does that make you feel better?

Instead of this partisan bull**** you're pushing we should be uniting the moderate republicans towards a free and open society and not trying to lump all of them into the fascist asshole group.

Click to expand...

no we should hold them accountable, besides its a cop-out, no one single candidate is representative of every single person in their party, so pointing that out doesn't make any sense, they don't disagree with him enough to even knock him down to number 2. They can stop supporting him any day they want too, and you can stop being a democrat or a republican any day you want too

and what partisan bull**** are you refferring to? do you mean judging a political party by the who their main candidate for president is?

how dare I? :roll:

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

dimensionallava said:

no we should hold them accountable, besides its a cop-out, no one single candidate is representative of every single person in their party, so pointing that out doesn't make any sense, they don't disagree with him enough to even knock him down to number 2. They can stop supporting him any day they want too, and you can stop being a democrat or a republican any day you want too

and what partisan bull**** are you refferring to? do you mean judging a political party by the who their main candidate for president is?

how dare I? :roll:

Click to expand...

Frankly, you're whining that I said "his supporters" instead of "all conservatives". Instead of attacking the people you disagree with, you're attacking the person attacking the people you disagree with.

If you have a problem with my choice of terminology you can start another thread to cry about it. When you have something meaningful to add to the conversation, I'll be here.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Frankly, you're whining that I said "his supporters" instead of "all conservatives". Instead of attacking the people you disagree with, you're attacking the person attacking the people you disagree with.

If you have a problem with my choice of terminology you can start another thread to cry about it. When you have something meaningful to add to the conversation, I'll be here.

Click to expand...

not you specifically :2razz: (i didn't mean to sound like was attacking you personally) i just noticed its a trend in news articles and the way people opposed to trump talk about him. Nobody does that for clinton or jeb bush, but for some reason trump has his "own supporters" ones that don't seem to qualify as republicans.

I think your insulting the majority of repubicans by saying they're not representative of their own party

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

As usual, this is completely false.

A few examples of what could theoretically be constitutional:
- "We are rejecting all asylum applications from all Syrians"
- "We're closing the border and not allowing anyone in other than passport holding Americans"

An example of what under no circumstance could be construed as constitutional:
- "All adherents of religion XX are henceforth banned from entering the US."

The government can not blanket ban an entire religion from entering the country. Nevermind the practicality of it, how do you administer a religious test in the first place to determine if one's a Muslim or not? Do we have the TSA baptize everyone coming into the country then make them eat a bag of pork rines just to be safe?

Click to expand...

Silly straw man argument - it's extremely easy to stop processing visas from specific countries. It's also easy to have laws requiring that those in identifiable religious garbs be rejected. France has already had such laws for quite some time. Fundamentalists tend to wear certain religious garbs and want to shove their religion in everyone else's face. Such people can easily be stopped at the border, just as someone carrying contraband can easily be identified and stopped.

What I think also has to happen is for legislation to be repealed which has the effect of denying people the right to freedom of dissociation. If you like to play loud yodeling music wherever you go, and I don't like that, then I have a right to not associate with you, I have a right to not have anything to do with you whatsoever. I have a right not to do business with you, I have a right to not have any kind of relationship with you. That's my basic right and my freedom of choice. Your freedom ends where my freedom begins - and you have no right to infringe upon my personal choices by crying "discrimination".

Freedom of dissociation is a fundamental right, and any society which suppresses that right is not a free society.

Donald says bigoted, xenophobic nonsense like this because he knows his supporters are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes. It's why he feeds their fear by attacking Mexicans and Muslims. The rest of the country finds the prospect of him actually having a shred of power to be terrifying and also unlikely.

Click to expand...

No, it's just rabid Lefties like you who claim that anyone who doesn't toe their line are "bigoted, xenophobic assholes". If you and your preferred Muslims think they're "bigoted, xenophobic assholes" then why are you trying so hard to live among them? Let's face it - you don't think that at all - what you really see these people as is a Gravy Train whom you intend to browbeat into submission so that you can feast on them.

Race-baiting extremists like you want to race-bait at every opportunity. You want people to be able to illegally migrate into a country by defending their illegal actions through your race-baiting and browbeating. You want to uphold transgressions of the law in order to render such laws effectively non-existent, and in order ensure that only those you favor are catered to, while everybody else is rendered helpless and hostage to your race-baiting.

National sovereignty matters, and those who reject national sovereignty are no friend to any nation. Respect for borders is a matter of national sovereignty, which is fundamental to any nation.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

Riveroaks said:

We have not elected another fascist since Nixon.

Maybe we are overdue ?!

Click to expand...

Fascist, shmascist - what's fascist is an overbearing state intrusively telling its citizens whom they have to associate with, and barring them their personal choice to not associate with someone according to their own free will.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

Here's a good litmus test - if your country fails to separate church and state, or is deemed to have policies which discriminate against other religions, then processing of visas for your country will be delayed or potentially even not done at all. Just about every Muslim country falls under that category - and that's the salient problem with Islam, because it justifies such things.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

sanman said:

Silly straw man argument - it's extremely easy to stop processing visas from specific countries. It's also easy to have laws requiring that those in identifiable religious garbs be rejected. France has already had such laws for quite some time. Fundamentalists tend to wear certain religious garbs and want to shove their religion in everyone else's face. Such people can easily be stopped at the border, just as someone carrying contraband can easily be identified and stopped.

What I think also has to happen is for legislation to be repealed which has the effect of denying people the right to freedom of dissociation. If you like to play loud yodeling music wherever you go, and I don't like that, then I have a right to not associate with you, I have a right to not have anything to do with you whatsoever. I have a right not to do business with you, I have a right to not have any kind of relationship with you. That's my basic right and my freedom of choice. Your freedom ends where my freedom begins - and you have no right to infringe upon my personal choices by crying "discrimination".

Freedom of dissociation is a fundamental right, and any society which suppresses that right is not a free society.




No, it's just rabid Lefties like you who claim that anyone who doesn't toe their line are "bigoted, xenophobic assholes". If you and your preferred Muslims think they're "bigoted, xenophobic assholes" then why are you trying so hard to live among them? Let's face it - you don't think that at all - what you really see these people as is a Gravy Train whom you intend to browbeat into submission so that you can feast on them.

Race-baiting extremists like you want to race-bait at every opportunity. You want people to be able to illegally migrate into a country by defending their illegal actions through your race-baiting and browbeating. You want to uphold transgressions of the law in order to render such laws effectively non-existent, and in order ensure that only those you favor are catered to, while everybody else is rendered helpless and hostage to your race-baiting.

National sovereignty matters, and those who reject national sovereignty are no friend to any nation. Respect for borders is a matter of national sovereignty, which is fundamental to any nation.

Click to expand...

Ahhh. So by muslims existing in your presence it suppresses your fundamental right to not be around muslims. I guess that means I have a fundamental right to never, ever, under any circumstances see a christian. How dare they wear a cross in my presence!

You sound super xenophobic and your reasoning is poor. It's not surprising you're a Trump fanatic. He tends to attract that kind of person. Let me know when you can explain how you can test if someone is a muslim or not.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Ahhh. So by muslims existing in your presence it suppresses your fundamental right to not be around muslims. I guess that means I have a fundamental right to never, ever, under any circumstances see a christian. How dare they wear a cross in my presence!

Click to expand...

Don't like it? Don't move to a country full of them. Countries cater to their existing citizenry, not to wanna-be's. That's why immigration is not owed.

You sound super xenophobic and your reasoning is poor. It's not surprising you're a Trump fanatic. He tends to attract that kind of person. Let me know when you can explain how you can test if someone is a muslim or not.

Click to expand...

I am a dark-skinned Asian, and I am physically indistinguishable from those people who carried out the San Bernardino attacks. My family comes from the same part of the world they come from. I don't wear the stupid fundamentalist clothes they do, but if I were to, then you wouldn't be able to tell me apart from them to save your life. Your false allegation of xenophobia doesn't carry any credibility with me at all. You sound like a race-baiter.

When in Rome, live as the Romans do. When in France, live as the French do. When in Japan, live as the Japanese do. When in America, live as the Americans do.

Wearing the fundamentalist clothes sounds like enough of a litmus test. It may not stop every would-be attacker, but it will stop enough potential radicals. Fundamentalists aren't a good addition to any country, so I see no reason to import more. You on the other hand seem to want to import more - care to explain why?

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

sanman said:

Don't like it? Don't move to a country full of them. Countries cater to their existing citizenry, not to wanna-be's. That's why immigration is not owed.



I am a dark-skinned Asian, and I am physically indistinguishable from those people who carried out the San Bernardino attacks. My family comes from the same part of the world they come from. I don't wear the stupid fundamentalist clothes they do, but if I were to, then you wouldn't be able to tell me apart from them to save your life. Your false allegation of xenophobia doesn't carry any credibility with me at all. You sound like a race-baiter.

When in Rome, live as the Romans do. When in France, live as the French do. When in Japan, live as the Japanese do. When in America, live as the Americans do.

Wearing the fundamentalist clothes sounds like enough of a litmus test. It may not stop every would-be attacker, but it will stop enough potential radicals. Fundamentalists aren't a good addition to any country, so I see no reason to import more. You on the other hand seem to want to import more - care to explain why?

Click to expand...

Dark skinned asian? Why do you think you deserve to be in the states then? According to you we should deny entry to anyone who doesn't mesh with the majority, and considering the majority of Americans are white christians you don't belong here. How dare you be different than the majority.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

sanman said:

Here's an article on Trump's proposed immigration ban - and it says that it's constitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/trumps-anti-muslim-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html


Why should any such ban be unconstitutional? If a threat to public safety is correlated with a particular group, then I don't see how said group should get constitutional protection to carry out threats. The ban is not in connection with disliking someone's (religious) ethnicity, it's in dealing with the threat of violence.

Trump isn't expressing dislike for someone's (religious) ethnicity, he's expressing concern about the threat of violence. It's not like he's complaining about the smell of someone's food or about the sound of their music. Violence and terrorism are legitimate concerns, and should not be dismissed as frivolous concerns.

Tell me - when the US State Department issues a Travel Advisory against travel to some dangerous area - isn't this too "judging all people by the actions of extremists"? Yes, it is - but those State Department advisories get issued anyway, based purely on risk assessment. What is the moral difference between a risk-based State Department Travel Advisory which applies to people going out from the US to an area, versus an immigration curtailment which applies to people coming into the US from that area? I see no real difference on a moral or a practical level, and terrorist threats must be dealt with in a practical way.

Click to expand...

Oops again wrong.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law concerning religion.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/242015-constitutionality-immigration-bans.html

I adore how you insist on presenting as an expert on everything but won't do any research. There is this thing called the internet, if it happened it's there.

You should try it.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

dimensionallava said:

The hell I can't?... they're voting for him aren't they?

Click to expand...

You certainly can, but you asked why everyone doesn't call him "because he knows republicans are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes."

Clearly not everyone agree with you

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Dark skinned asian? Why do you think you deserve to be in the states then? According to you we should deny entry to anyone who doesn't mesh with the majority, and considering the majority of Americans are white christians you don't belong here. How dare you be different than the majority.

Click to expand...

Islam is not a race or a skin color - just because I happen to look like most of them, doesn't mean I want to practice beliefs that I consider to be abhorrent.

Yes, it's true that I've been greeted by Muslims with "Salaam Alaikam" many times, because they'd think that I'm one of them, because I look physically indistinguishable from a Muslim - except for the fact that I dress in normal clothes. I've also known many Muslims socially. When you socialize with people who look like you, they tend to be more relaxed and will open up to you in ways that they won't do with other people.

You need to understand that it's a bad idea for successful countries to allow themselves to be colonized by those from unsuccessful countries with ridiculously retrograde beliefs. The more you allow this, the worse things will get for you. And the stubbornly blind ones will keep insisting that it's a matter of stretching ever farther to accommodate someone who will never be appeased, and whose mentality is to always put the onus on everyone else to make that person feel accepted. Sorry, but I don't believe in endless appeasement, which only results in someone making ever more escalating demands of others.

A spade has to be called a spade - some belief systems are ridiculously outmoded and are long overdue for reform and updating. You can call me "intolerant" or whatever silly PC term you want.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "there must be moderation in all things - including in moderation itself."

The "tolerance" cult is out of control, and we are seeing the negative results of this.

I believe that credibility must be earned, and not demanded. That is my argument phrased in terms of First Principles.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

sanman said:

Islam is not a race or a skin color - just because I happen to look like most of them, doesn't mean I want to practice beliefs that I consider to be abhorrent.

Yes, it's true that I've been greeted by Muslims with "Salaam Alaikam" many times, because they'd think that I'm one of them, because I look physically indistinguishable from a Muslim - except for the fact that I dress in normal clothes. I've also known many Muslims socially. When you socialize with people who look like you, they tend to be more relaxed and will open up to you in ways that they won't do with other people.

You need to understand that it's a bad idea for successful countries to allow themselves to be colonized by those from unsuccessful countries with ridiculously retrograde beliefs. The more you allow this, the worse things will get for you. And the stubbornly blind ones will keep insisting that it's a matter of stretching ever farther to accommodate someone who will never be appeased, and whose mentality is to always put the onus on everyone else to make that person feel accepted. Sorry, but I don't believe in endless appeasement, which only results in someone making ever more escalating demands of others.

A spade has to be called a spade - some belief systems are ridiculously outmoded and are long overdue for reform and updating. You can call me "intolerant" or whatever silly PC term you want.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "there must be moderation in all things - including in moderation itself."

The "tolerance" cult is out of control, and we are seeing the negative results of this.

I believe that credibility must be earned, and not demanded. That is my argument phrased in terms of First Principles.

Click to expand...

Your beliefs do not match mine. Please leave America immediately. America was meant to have a homogenous population where everyone looks the same and agrees on everything.

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

Moderator's Warning:

Stick to the topic please. Your question here is better asked in a separate thread if you think its that important enough to derail a thread. dimensionallava said: why does everyone say "his supporters" or "his voter base" before making statements like this? Instead of saying something like "because he knows republicans are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes." or "because he knows conservatives are primarily bigoted, xenophobic assholes." Why do people always discount his supporters like they're not representative of America? Like hes the leader of a foreign army or something? Click to expand...

Re: Constitutionality of Immigration Bans

RabidAlpaca said:

Your beliefs do not match mine. Please leave America immediately. America was meant to have a homogenous population where everyone looks the same and agrees on everything.

Click to expand...

That's strange - you seem to have been arguing in the opposite direction in all your previous posts, so I find it hard to take these comments from you seriously. Actually, if these comments are your genuine personal beliefs, then that would explain why you want to support Muslim immigration into America, because I know from personal experience that many Muslims support the homogeneity and groupthink that you expressed support for in your comments - it's just that they want the homogeneity and consensus to be built around them. Islam promotes a huge amount of homogeneity and groupthink - so certainly, if that's what you're after, then importing more Muslims could help to encourage that. In the early stages it will manifest itself as calls for tolerance and accommodation. Then later as
group tectonics, whereby individualism is replaced by ethnic bloc-voting, which is what Muslims overwhelmingly engage in when living inside non-Muslim countries where they're minorities. Later, it will evolve into demands for suspension of certain laws or their de facto non-enforcement. My family comes from India, where this type of behavior from Muslims is very commonplace. You're ridiculously naive, and don't understand how squatter mentality can defeat constitutional and legal mechanisms. You need to actually live in a democratic country with a large Muslim demographic, like India - then you'll understand how silly and naive your arguments and assumptions are.


I'm fully in favor of assimilation, and I'm happy to embrace assimilation - I like the idea of the melting pot. But I don't like those who don't themselves practice what they expect others to practice towards them. I don't like the idea of double standards.

sanman said:

Here's an article on Trump's proposed immigration ban - and it says that it's constitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/trumps-anti-muslim-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html


Why should any such ban be unconstitutional? If a threat to public safety is correlated with a particular group, then I don't see how said group should get constitutional protection to carry out threats. The ban is not in connection with disliking someone's (religious) ethnicity, it's in dealing with the threat of violence.

Trump isn't expressing dislike for someone's (religious) ethnicity, he's expressing concern about the threat of violence. It's not like he's complaining about the smell of someone's food or about the sound of their music. Violence and terrorism are legitimate concerns, and should not be dismissed as frivolous concerns.

Tell me - when the US State Department issues a Travel Advisory against travel to some dangerous area - isn't this too "judging all people by the actions of extremists"? Yes, it is - but those State Department advisories get issued anyway, based purely on risk assessment. What is the moral difference between a risk-based State Department Travel Advisory which applies to people going out from the US to an area, versus an immigration curtailment which applies to people coming into the US from that area? I see no real difference on a moral or a practical level, and terrorist threats must be dealt with in a practical way.

Click to expand...

Well, the cases are rather archaic, the last decision coming more than 40 years ago, and the tenor of the Court, its disdain for discrimination, I question whether those decisions would withstand a challenge.

However, I would contend the feds power is limited by the BOR and this includes the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause does not permit the government to act in any manner violating the EC. The Establishment Clause restricts power on the basis of the subject matter. In other words, the feds are prohibited from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion. If the federal action or law respects an establishment of religion, then the law/action is not permitted.

The EC has a non-discrimination principle. The federal government cannot discriminate between the religious and non-religious, between religions, or between denominations within a religion. Trump's ban of Muslims, while permitting people of other religious faith, discriminates on the basis of religion. This violates the EC.