Giuliani: ‘No Question’ Trump Muslim Ban Violates First Amendment

[Mechanicos]

Wrong, RIV, and you know what you just posted is wrong.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

Not just from Syria and not just refugees, but ALL MUSLIMS.  This includes visitors with family here, businessmen,  and women and children. 

I see even you aren't in favor of a total ban.  Good.  That's a start.  Get your boy to back off.  He hasn't yet, except for wealthy Muslim businessmen and the mayor of London.

Actually you are wrong. America has a long history of war with Islam and its terrorism. There is established precedent. T

[sinkspur]

Is $neverTrump really on the side of Soros and the Caliphate? Giuliani is wrong and hes likely out over this.

Guiliani said this four months ago and Trump still brought him into his inner circle.  This ban is the next thing to go.

[DiogenesLamp]

The same kinds of scary things used to be said about Catholics in the mid-1800s.  There were all kinds of fears that Catholics were going to try to impose The Pope on the United States.  The people who were virulenty opposed to Catholic immigration were known as "No-Nothings."

Were the Catholics involved in killing 100 million people,   you might have an apt analogy.   From what I have read,  the worst estimates of the Inquisition were something like 65,000 people over a 300 year period.   (@ 216 per year)   


Catholicism has never been a threat to humanity such as Islam has always been.   
  (10 million per year)   

The protestants did their share of killings too  (during the religious wars in Europe)   but none of this comes close to the sheer murder machine that Islam has been since it's inception. 

[Mechanicos]

The Ban on Muslim military age male "refugees" (sic) is not going anywhere. Its about America's survival and we can see how not doing it has worked out in other Western Countries.

Since they are NOT American citizens our Constitution does not apply to them until they are inside our country, even then thanks to the Patriot Act Cruz voted for they can be stripped of any Constitutional rights they are argued to have. Oh and Rico covers all of Islam for that purpose.

[sinkspur]

The founding document of this Nation,  the "Declaration of Independence"  cites God as it's authority,   The Articles of Confederation do as well,    and both the Articles and the US Constitution specifically refer to Jesus.   


Our system began with a deliberate and inherent bias against other religions,   and it is a modern fiction that it was ever secular.   




I think we should concern ourselves with our own family before extending charity to others,   Especially others who bring with them ideas  and attitudes which can only turn our land into  a place like that from whence they fled.   


I am also for imposing bans on Californians leaving their state,   but *THAT*   is probably not enforceable.

Where is "Jesus" in the Constitution?  "Year of our Lord"  was an English translation of "Anno Domini" which was commonly used in legal documents to express the year.  And "Lord" was also a common reference to God the Father in the Yahwist tradition. 

So it's a stretch to say "Jesus" is in the Constitution.

Our system is based on freedom of religion and always has been.  And, since our government is not based on the practice of a particular religious faith, it is a secular form of government.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not going to argue with you.  We should be glad we seem to have a happy Muslim population here in the US instead of painting a bleak picture of conditions that likely will never happen.

It is the probability that it will (based on past occurrences) that makes it an issue worthy of discussion.   


I have come to the realization that "memes"   have an existence not unlike a living creature,  and some memes are predators,  and other memes are prey.     What ends up occurring with Memes  (meaning in this case religious doctrines)   is an evolutionary survival of the fittest. 


The Islamic meme has shown itself repeatedly to be a rather hardy and virulent one. 

[Oceander]

Giuliani is simply wrong.  Trump's idea is utterly asinine and unenforcesble, but a complete ban on Muslims entering the country is most likely not unconstitutional, and almost certainly not a violation of the first amendment as it neither establishes religion not interferes with the free exercise thereof, and in any event cannot be construed as overruling the basic right of controlling who crosses the borders (i.e., immigration).

[TomSea]

Nah.  Muslims assimilate better in the US than anywhere in the world.  They're too busy making money and providing for their families.

Yeah, they assimilate really well, that's why it is weekly or daily news of trials of some trying to join ISIS or recruitment stories.

Investigator | ISIS tactics used to recruit Ohio teens

CLEVELAND - The Cleveland office of the FBI says a top counter-terrorism priority is stopping ISIS from using social media to recruit young people.

Counter-terrorism experts tell WKYC Channel 3 News that ISIS has a dedicated staff of about 2,000 members assigned to Twitter. Those individuals use 90,000 Twitter accounts to try to recruit young members.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/investigations/investigator-isis-tactics-used-to-recruit-ohio-teens/184612005

Jury Selection To Continue In Trial Men Accused Of Trying To Join ISIS
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/05/10/day-two-of-terror-trial/

Trial of Veteran Accused of Trying to Join ISIS May Hinge on Unsent Letter ·

These stories aren't actually rare and how about San Bernardino, Fort Hood and some other incidences.

[TomSea]

Giuliani is simply wrong.  Trump's idea is utterly asinine and unenforcesble, but a complete ban on Muslims entering the country is most likely not unconstitutional, and almost certainly not a violation of the first amendment as it neither establishes religion not interferes with the free exercise thereof, and in any event cannot be construed as overruling the basic right of controlling who crosses the borders (i.e., immigration).

There was a ban on the Japanese or some group too in the history of this nation. That came out in the news as well.

[mountaineer]

Giuliani is simply wrong.  Trump's idea is utterly asinine and unenforcesble, but a complete ban on Muslims entering the country is most likely not unconstitutional, and almost certainly not a violation of the first amendment as it neither establishes religion not interferes with the free exercise thereof, and in any event cannot be construed as overruling the basic right of controlling who crosses the borders (i.e., immigration).

I quite agree. What a surprisingly ignorant thing for Rudy to say.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where is "Jesus" in the Constitution?  "Year of our Lord"  was an English translation of "Anno Domini" which was commonly used in legal documents to express the year.  And "Lord" was also a common reference to God the Father in the Yahwist tradition. 

So "one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven year of our Lord is referring to the time since the Burning bush or something?     


Well what about the part where it exempts the President from having to work on Sunday?   I could be mistaken,   but I think the Jewish sabbath was still Saturday even back in 1787. 

So it's a stretch to say "Jesus" is in the Constitution.

It was the verbiage on virtually all legal documents at that time,  and for nearly 200 years afterwards.    It illustrates just how ingrained into the culture was this dominance of the Christian religion.   

No,  it's not a stretch at all.   They were deliberately referring to Jesus as "Our Lord."   It was an official act,  meant to convey the notion that Government was of a lesser power than that of God;   A belief that was dominant in all European derived governments of that era.   

Modern people find this truth embarrassing,  because it doesn't let them hide behind "Politically Correct"  views which have become popular in the last half century.    People think it's "Unfair"   to acknowledge the Christian religion was dominant in the formation and inherent condition of the national government.   

Our system is based on freedom of religion and always has been.  And, since our government is not based on the practice of a particular religious faith, it is a secular form of government.

I criticized a man yesterday for posting something which was inaccurate and lacking in precision,  and this statement is exactly that.    It glosses completely over the true state of affairs,  and jumps right to the unsupportable conclusion that the government was intended to be secular at it's inception.   


No,   the Nation was initially built as a confederation of independent states,  about seven of which still maintained official *STATE*  religions at the time,   with compulsory tithing and such enforced by the state governments.     

The intention of the US  Constitution was to reassure diverse States with differing state religions that no DENOMINATION would be recognized as the official state religion of the US.    It was never intended to go so far as to suggest the national government would not be Christian,   that was an assumed given for the time period.   

It was a necessary assurance created to prevent the blowing up of the coalition thru denominational disputes.   

[BuckeyeTexan]

This is not just about immigration. It's about visitors as well.  So, Israelis are from the Middle East.  Ban them too?

Ban Indians?  Bangladeshis?  Jordanians? 

You have GOT to be kidding me.  This is an insane idea from an ignorant, incoherent bigot.

Of course not the entire ME. We can identify some number of ME countries whose "refugees" pose a significant national security risk.

[driftdiver]

I look at places like Dallas, Texas, with a large Muslim population.  Houston has a lot of Muslims too.  Dearborn has a much heavier concentration of Muslims, I'm sure.  One or two cities out of thousands though proves my point.

No it doesn't prove your point.  What it proves is once they achieve a large enough population they seek to create sharia law.