Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (625314)	2/9/2017 10:57:15 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

How would that get around the establishments clause? He has the constitutional power to do so. But to get past the courts he gets an "Act of War" passed against Militant Islam and also with a clause that the courts can't interfere. Hmmm, so first there would need to be some national discussion/explanation along the lines of "Islam is not a religion protected by the establishment clause, or at least "some of Islam is not a religion which has 1st amendment protection." Right? Something along the lines of "Militant Islam (somewhere inside the religion known as Islam) is an ideology which is a threat to our nation, similar to Communism during the Cold War" I would think the courts would tend to rule something along the lines of "You've got to prove than an individual Muslims is a believer/member of "Militant Islam" in order to get around the Establishment clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof That makes it pretty hard for Congress/The President to make a law banning Muslims. I think you'd either have to argue "Islam is not a religion" (and you're going to lose that argument), or "Militant Islam inside Islam is a threat to the nation", but then you're going to get the court telling you to ban "Militant Islam", not Muslims. As for 5 judges siding with Trump, I would think the conservatives/originalists are all going to vote against the constitutionality of a law that bans members of a religion in the same way they all vote against gun control laws. The constitution literally says you can't do what you want to do - the conservatives would vote against you. I don't see how your Muslim ban/limit is going to get around the 1st amendment. Does this "Act of War" thing allow the government to ignore the constitution? And can an "Act of War" be against an ideology as opposed to another country's government? Seems like the war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, it never finishes.