It's hardly the case that concerns about Caesarism began in 1960. Many expressed that concern about Hamilton. Jefferson and Madison thought the same (with considerable justification) about Jackson. The US as a whole went through a whole series of general-presidents thereafter until the tide receded around 1890.

As for Reagan's "competence" as governor, any unbiased history of the state would conclude that he did considerable damage as governor, most particularly to the education system. But while he charmed the public despite his general incompetence, he was no Caesarist. He operated mostly (Iran-Contra excepted) within the confines of the US norm.

While you note it in passing, Congress itself bears a good deal of responsibility for the trend toward executive action. Again, this is not new. It's very old, in fact -- legislative failure leads to executive power expansion. Obama isn't "worse" or "unique" in this, he's simply following a 200 year old trend. What's truly new is that Trump threatens not to continue that trend, but to dispense with limitations entirely. He's not in the tradition of Jefferson authorizing the Louisiana Purchase or Lincoln suspending habeas corpus or FDR taking us off the gold standard, he's in the tradition of Robespierre and Louis Napoleon and Mussolini, where their own subjective interpretation of the "national will" is the only thing that matters.
 

I thank Mark Field for his typically thoughtful comment. Two responses: First, I noted only that Reagan proved a competent politician, which is certainly true. As you can easily predict, I was appalled by the substance of his governorship, but, as Mark agrees, he was no Caesarist in his overall political demeanor, if for no other reason that Caesarists prefer to dwell on the darkness rather than posit that it's morning in .... Secondly, Caesarism requires a certain mode of self-presentation. Recall that it was considered déclassé for presidential candidates actually to campaign for the office until the 20th century. My colleague Jeff Tulis's very important book on The Rhetorical Presidency views Wilson as the crucial bridge to the modern presidency, though, of course, Teddy Roosevelt's notion of "The Bully Pulpit" also has to play an important role. But it was Wilson who really disdained the notion of separation of powers and viewed himself as a would-be prime minister, though not one who was subject to parliamentary displacement, as in a proper parliamentary system. It was Wilson who broke what had become well--established precedent by delivering the State of the Union message in person. It's also not irrelevant that, like Trump, Wilson was a Presbyterian who clearly had Messianic self-regard. Although Coolidge was the first president to take advantage of radio, it was FDR, of course, who transformed the office through his "fireside chats." I wonder how many pictures of presidents before FDR regularly adorned the walls of his supporters. Eisenhower, ironically, was as far from a Caesarist as could be imagined; imagine, though, if his compatriot Douglas MacArthur had been successful in his quest for the Oval Office.

I agree with Mark, of course, that Trump is more directly comparable to Robespierre, Louis Napoleon, Mussolini, or Franco than to any prior American president. That's what makes this election so truly crucial.

And, incidentally, while I have the floor, I want to comment Mr. DePalma for his opposition to Trump. I see no reason to believe that it isn't sincere. I've certainly spent my share of time being irritated at some of his postings, but I truly object to the completely dismissive tone that is often directed his way. I have turned into a "Hamilton" obsessive, and one of the key lines comes at the end, when Aaron Burr suggests that he should have recognized earlier than he did that "the world was big enough for Hamilton and me." I think the world is big enough for Mr. DePalma and his foes, at least on this venue.
 

While I think it's possible Trump can be correctly described as a narcissistic sociopath (as Biden said, relishing 'you're fired' is something pretty dark), I'm, as one might expect, pretty sanguine about the prospect of his election. I think if Trump were to win he would be a figure perhaps more polarizing than Obama and Bush before him, easily and uniformly despised in every state which elected a blue senator, and we could expect the Democrats to filibuster almost anything attached to him. He'd be an international embarrassment of course, but if Italy can survive Berlusconi we can survive four years of Trump.

The worst thing about a Trump Presidency would be his SCOTUS pick, but I doubt it would be different in degree or kind than a Cruz choice.
 

You know, four years ago, the Republican nominee was a monster who gave a woman cancer for yucks. Every four years, starting with Wendell Willkie, the Republicans have nominated Hitler. Seriously, you can look it up: Every last one got compared to Hitler. You'd have started sooner, but people would have asked who Hitler was. Remember Reagan? He was going to start WW three. After a while, this gets a bit tired.

I guess I can understand the desire to regard the opposition as inhuman monsters. The worse your foe is, the worse you can be yourself and still be the relative good guy. Fighting absolute evil gives you absolute freedom, anything goes.

It's all so transparent. You're not fooling anyone, except maybe yourselves.
 

How widespread do you think that was Brett? Every four years the fringe in both parties portrays the other side's candidate as 'the worst ever!', that's of course as true of you as anyone else. But how widespread is that? People didn't like Romney (he started writing off 47% of the vote mind you), but very few saw him as Hitler or bought into the ad about him causing the person's death. But just about every Democrat, fringe, middle, what have you, thinks Trump is uniquely terrible. Heck, his GOP opponents said the same about him, and you have to admit that's kind of rare.
 

I don't question the sincerity really of anyone here.

Their ability to reason things out without too much self-delusion is a bit different. Degrees and all that; so no, I'm not saint. That's the guy from Galilee. Mr. W. for quite some time was quite patient with BP. At some point, even for him, it got to be a bit too much. Some snark and such sneaked into his replies. And, heavy-handedness (including cocky criticism) makes that sort of thing that much worse.

Why Brett starts with 1940, especially when the discussion goes back to the 18th Century is unclear to me. Eh. There is a reason why people who liked Reagan now are very concerned with Trump. There's a difference. "The opposition" in every case wasn't treated the same "as inhuman monsters." I don't even think Trump is one (that's for those movies on ME TV with Svengoolie as a host). He is not the same as various other people though. That's why Republicans included have so many issues.

Anyway, I'm not really "sanguine" for someone that can be labeled a "narcissistic sociopath" becoming President. You can't filibuster everything Presidents do. If he wins, it will be likely we will have a Republican Congress too. I'll believe it when I see it when Democrats in the Senate filibuster everything there. They will do what they did in the Bush years -- stop him somewhat, but much will get thru. There, we had Iraq. And, George Bush had more going for him.

We lived thru that, of course, but not really anything to be too 'sanguine' about. Trump's Supreme Court pick being different from Cruz is not really why people are upset about Trump over Cruz really. OTOH, either getting one or more picks, including given Mr. W's stated concerns, is not "sanguine" either.

Anyway, granting I think both SL and Brett uses too much hyperbole, Trump's beliefs on "evil" and what sort of power is warranted to use it, including his belief that he specifically should be trusted with a lot of it [Clinton's message was the value of working within the system] is sort of why many of us are concerned.

 

ETA: "sort of" was used since there are various reasons we are concerned; "we" being a range of people in and outside of the Democratic Party.
 

Go back and read him during the primaries. Bart isn't objecting to Trump because he thinks his buffoonish, narcissistic behavior is objectionable, or that he's racist. He objects to Trump because he thinks he's secretly too 'progressive' and not a real conservative like Cruz. Cruz was the choice of longtime, informed conservative activists, Trump's appeal was to low information racists within the party. You have to give Bart credit that he found the former more appealing than the latter, but Cruz is much more the dedicated ideologue than Trump.
 

I should qualify: there are outright racists, and there are many that I would call 'racially obtuse,' that is white (usually) guys who seem incapable of seeing things through the historical and contemporary 'lens' of some racial minorities in the US. Trump does really well with both.
 

To follow up on Mr. W's point, Sandy seems to have invested in "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sandy in an earlier post "friended" Jennifer Rubin and others who have been critical) to put it mildly) of President Obama from day one. Maybe Sandy has even "friended" George Will. Kurt Vonnegut pointed out one must be careful of the company one keeps. Of course a counter to such an investment is "The friend of my enemy is my enemy." Is it time for an intervention?
 

And, incidentally, while I have the floor, I want to comment Mr. DePalma for his opposition to Trump.
# posted by Blogger Sandy Levinson : 6:56 PM

LOL Blankshot objects to Trump because he thinks Trump is a progressive.
 

This seems based upon a tidbit of Weber to me and one that elides the context within which he was writing. There is a performative and persuasive component to his work in this period--he derides parties for representing their own interests and engages in quite a bit of dithering on the merits of universal suffrage--because he was an active participant in the aftermath of WWI. That doesn't mean it's not applicable to the current situation, of course. It just seems stretched a little thin for the set-up here, and I would hesitate to use the term "Weberian analysis" to describe the extension of a snapshot into a comparison with the contemporary election.


 

Perhaps it might be more appropriate for "The Gilded Age take on the 2016 Republican nominee" rather than Sandy's Weberian approach. Come to think of this, I recall posts by Jack Balkin at this Blog and in articles about The Second Gilded Age of today. The 2016 Republican nominee didn't appear out of the blue. Rather, the 2016 Republican nominee was enabled by Republican policies going back to Richard Nixon. The Bush/Cheney 8 years set the stage for further shifting of the Republican Party, which focused on thwarting, for its survival, governance during the first and second terms of President Obama, during which the 2016 Republican nominee was leading the "birther" battle that Obama was not born in the United States. In the 2008 campaign John McCain was sunk by his VP choice, a ditzy Governor from Alaska. In 2012, the Republican candidates were described as a Clown Car. In 2016 even more Republican candidates jumped in, now with a Clown Limo. The 2016 Republican nominee outdid, outlasted the GOP's best and the brightest, thereby highjacking the Republican Party culminating in the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention. One doesn't have to be a New York billionaire (thank you, Mike, formerly of Meffa, MA) to know a con job.

Many in the Republican Party of old (especially of the Bush/Cheney years) continue to challenge the 2016 Republican nominee while some (Ryan, McConnell, McCain) provide mild or token support, more concerned with the Senate and the House. But these Republicans have failed to accept their responsibility, their guilt, for their enabling the 2016 Republican nominee. Rather, these Republicans attack Hillary Clinton, attacks that go back to the two terms of President Clinton. Rather than accept that they lost the Republican Party in going through their stages of grief/loss, they do not accept responsibility and decline their guilt. Rather than what's best for America, these Republicans seem to prefer a scorched earth. Take Michael Gerson, formerly of the Bush/Cheney Administration, now a columnist for the WaPo. Gerson has been at the forefront of challenging the 2016 Republican nominee but takes no responsibility nor accepts guilt for how the Republican Party had enabled the 2016 Republican nominee's highjacking of the Republican Party. Likewise others from the Bush/Cheney Administration. And while the Koch Bros. are not supporting the 2016 Republican nominee openly, they are at work protecting their fossil interests with funding for Senate and House and state Republican candidates, presumably to be in a position to thwart a President Hillary Clinton, assuring continued political dysfunction; but the efforts of the Koch Bros. may provide support for the 2016 Republican nominee. It's time for these Republicans to accept responsibility, accept guilt, for having enabled the 2016 Republican nominee.

I'm pleased PMS has returned, even if only temporarily, as PMS' comments on Weber were informative.
 

Sandy:

Writing in 1918, the great German political sociologist criticized all systems of “direct election by the people of the bearer of supreme power” as having within them an impulse toward Caesarism...What we are seeing today, in the sociopathic Donald Trump is the playing out of the Weberian analysis.

In all of this work, Max Weber assumed that an absolute bureaucracy was a foundation of the modern state and the bureaucracy would be manned by a mandarin caste the Germans called bildungsbergertum.

I presume you are quoting from Weber's book Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany, where the German political economist recognized the totalitarian threat posed by an absolute bureaucracy and the risk that a directly elected executive could earn election through demagoguery and then abuse the power of the bureaucracy to rule by decree.

What the sociopathic narcissitic running for President under the Republican label wants is exactly what Weber predicted, an “acclamation” by scared masses who basically license him to do quite literally whatever he wishes to meet the problems he identifies.

In reality, Weber's "Caesarist" fear was realized in the United States during the progressive Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama administrations. While it is likely that the progressives Trump and Clinton will continue along the "road to serfdom," they will hardly be starting the road work.

It is certainly the case that both Democratic and Republican presidents have been extending their powers in reaction to the breakdown of Congress as a truly functioning institution. Caesars power, after all, isn't necessary seized; it is often delegated by supine legislatures either caught up in party loyalty or a simple reluctance to engage in the hard tasks of governance.

Transitions from republics to dictatorships are often preceded by a voluntary legislative surrender of power to the executive.

In Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany, Weber theorized that your preferred parliamentary system could govern and check the modern absolute bureaucracy. The EU has proven Weber's theory to be mistaken.

More and more we seem to look to presidents to "lead," to have 20-point programs that are presented as the cures for whatever ail us.

The vast majority of the American electorate does not seek presidents to "lead" with "20-point programs that are presented as the cures for whatever ail us." This is the totalitarian world view of the mandarins in government, academia and media.


 

Sandy:

Apart from the fact he is running as a Republican, Donald Trump appears to offer the progressive politics you crave.

As an avid supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 (against Hillary Clinton, of course), I think it appropriate to note the Caesarist aspects of his own remarkable campaign, including the reliance on mass rallies and vague promises.

Obama and Trump both avoid providing specifics concerning their "Caesarist" policies and instead offer cults of personality leavened with promises of undefined change.

Tellingly, as he emphasized in his own marvelous speech earlier this week, Obama never once suggested that only he could guide us out of the political wilderness, but it is certainly the case that many of his supporters viewed him, in Maureen Dowd’s snarky language, as “the chosen One.”

Obama and Trump are both top flight narcissists. Barry mentioned himself 119 times in that speech and gave himself credit for guiding us out of any manner of economic and political wildernesses. The Donald promises that he will bring us terrific and "yuuuge" programs.

Trump is the student here, not the master.

My own hope is that Republicans will join Michael Bloomberg and others in voting for Hillary, who I do think is superbly qualified to be President.

To what qualifications are you referring?

Unlike Trump, Clinton has promised to take up Mr. Obama's pen and phone and expand the current Caesarist government.
 

"Why Brett starts with 1940, especially when the discussion goes back to the 18th Century is unclear to me."

I think that's transparently obvious: I was giving an example of the hyperbole Democrats routinely deploy against Republicans, and that particular example began in 1940. Nothing more.

Basically everybody who runs for President is a narcissist. It's a given, you don't run for President unless you have an incredibly inflated opinion of your own competence. If anything, there's less basis for this accusation in Trump's case, since his business accomplishments prior to entering politics are conspicuously greater than those of the average (modern) President.
 

Mr. W: Go back and read him during the primaries. Bart isn't objecting to Trump because he thinks his buffoonish, narcissistic behavior is objectionable, or that he's racist. He objects to Trump because he thinks he's secretly too 'progressive' and not a real conservative like Cruz. Cruz was the choice of longtime, informed conservative activists, Trump's appeal was to low information racists within the party.

You are correct that I judge candidates by substance and not style. Now, let us examine the substance...

There is no evidence Trump is a racist or that he is appealing to racism.

Trump is a lifetime progressive offering a variation of Hitler's 1932 campaign, scapegoating foreigners (instead of Jews) for an economic depression caused by a failing socialist government. The Donald is appealing America's centuries long strain of isolationism, or using the current progressive term of choice - xenophobia.

Remember, fascism and progressivism are ideological kissing cousins with a long history of shared politics and policies. Trump's excursion into fascism has a pedigree reaching back into the New Deal. Until Germany and Italy started conquering our allies, American progressives considered Mussolini and Hitler to be political rock stars and modeled the NRA and CCC after their programs.

Yes, Trump's fascism is the antithesis to the classical liberalism of limited government and individual liberty Ted Cruz campaigns on in his better moments.
 

While Sandy has revised his post (which I have not read through as yet and would have appreciated his "redlining" for convenience and his thinking), he has not revised his comment that includes this paean to SPAM I AM!:

"And, incidentally, while I have the floor, I want to comment Mr. DePalma for his opposition to Trump. I see no reason to believe that it isn't sincere. I've certainly spent my share of time being irritated at some of his postings, but I truly object to the completely dismissive tone that is often directed his way."

Now that SPAM I AM! has provided comments after obviously Google research of Weber, a newer area of SPAM I AM!'s expertise, perhaps we can expect another comment from Sandy, as two Weberians clash over what PMS described as a "tidbit of Weber."

Or maybe Sandy is no longer a progressive as SPAM I AM! continues to engage in his Caesarist Salad that has long wilted.
 

There is no evidence Trump is a racist or that he is appealing to racism.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:20 PM

He demanded Obama's birth certificate. That's racist to the core.

David Duke is "overjoyed" that Trump has embraced his favorite issues. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
 

bb:

Because Obama refused for years to make public his birth certificate, the rumor was that Barry was a foreign citizen born in a foreign country. Trump attempted to exploit that rumor. This is an early version of Trump's anti-foreigner politics, not racism.
 

Shag: Now that SPAM I AM! has provided comments after obviously Google research of Weber, a newer area of SPAM I AM!'s expertise, perhaps we can expect another comment from Sandy, as two Weberians clash over what PMS described as a "tidbit of Weber."

Max Weber was a mandatory part of my research into the absolute bureaucracy. Because he is an admitted fanboy of Barack Obama, I was a little surprised Sandy brought up Weber given the salience of the German political economist's warnings to Obama's Caesarism.
 

Because Obama refused for years to make public his birth certificate, the rumor was that Barry was a foreign citizen born in a foreign country. Trump attempted to exploit that rumor. This is an early version of Trump's anti-foreigner politics, not racism.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:05 PM

That is complete bullshit. He demanded the birth certificate because Obama is black.

 

bb:

Trump has bashed every race of foreigners, from lily white members of NATO to Chinese currency manipulators to Muslims of any race to Mexican illegal immigrants.

Trump is a target rich environment for criticism. You do not have to invent fictional flaws.
 

SPAM I AM!'s:

"There is no evidence Trump is a racist or that he is appealing to racism. "

is quite revealing about whether SPAM I AM! is a racist or appeals to racism.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], just in case Sandy might not have noticed, here's what SPAM I AM! said:

"Because he is an admitted fanboy of Barack Obama, I was a little surprised Sandy brought up Weber given the salience of the German political economist's warnings to Obama's Caesarism."

Maybe Sandy will challenge SPAM I AM!'s research on Weber.

Sandy's paean to SPAM I AM! has resulted in having his derriere bitten. I think Sandy has "misunderestimated" SPAM I AM.! Perhaps Sandy doesn't understand that during SPAM I AM!'s time at this Blog, he has been stalking Sandy's views.
 

Shag:

If you have not noticed, I give even less of a damn about progressive racism slanders than does Mr. Trump.

You folks really need to get a fresh shtick.
 

"Because Obama refused for years to make public his birth certificate, the rumor was that Barry was a foreign citizen born in a foreign country."

That bio his publicist had published that said he was born in Kenya contributed. His refusal to allow the public to see his birth certificate just kept the rumor alive. Smart move, actually, as it kept his enemies focused on something where he knew there was nothing to find. As opposed to trying to get his college transcript, or something like that.
 

SPAM I AM! has con! confirmed it!
 

I think that's transparently obvious: I was giving an example of the hyperbole Democrats routinely deploy against Republicans, and that particular example began in 1940. Nothing more.

Hitler is an easy example though could have been raised earlier. But, the point still holds -- the discussion before speaks of "monsters" back to the 18th Century. You, yet again, as is your wont, skip ahead to fairly recently. Not so obvious. Finally, not sure how much bland Wilkie was made into a Hitler. Just because someone says something, it isn't a broad thing like here.

Basically everybody who runs for President is a narcissist. It's a given, you don't run for President unless you have an incredibly inflated opinion of your own competence.

First, you continue to minimize when it your guy, exaggerate when it's the other. By large amounts each way. That alone isn't the problem. Second, there is a sense of degree here.

If anything, there's less basis for this accusation in Trump's case, since his business accomplishments prior to entering politics are conspicuously greater than those of the average (modern) President.

This would be more convincing if he didn't say he was great on everything under the sun. But, anyways, him being a narcissist is far from the only problem here.


 

Oh, sure, being a narcissist isn't the only thing to dislike about Trump, or Clinton. My point is just that it drops out of the equation, being a constant on both sides. Presidential candidate? Narcissist. The days when people got "drafted" to run for President, despite not thinking themselves worthy, are long past. Move on to something else.
 

Today's NYTimes website includes an OpEd by Max Boot titled "How the 'Stupid Party' Created Donald Trump." Boot is described as a foreign policy adisor to John McCain, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio at the end of the OpEd. For some reason there is no mention of his prominent role with the Bush/Cheney Administration on foreign policy and military strategy. Boot's "history" of the "Stupid Party" goes back to Ike's presidency. Alas, Boot's history is askew as he ignores the role of the Bush/Cheney two terms contributing to the "Stupid Party" because he was part and parcel of it. Boot followed up with McCain, Romney and Rubio, all of whom can be described by The Donald as "losers." So perhaps The Donald will start a tweats exchange with Boot.

Those who read Boot's OpEd might read my 7:11 AM comment to see how Boot fits my thoughts therein.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Brett seems to accept that The Donald is a narcissist but calims all presidential candidates have to be narcissists. Brett's been playing with his Legos too long building bridges to nowhere. This is another instance of false equivalency as Brett looks to The Donald as his Great Creamsicle Hope to address the changing demographics.
 

In an earlier thread at this Blog, I included several comments on Dan P. McAdams' lengthy article in The Atlantic (June, 2016) "The Mind of Donald Trump" with a descriptive "Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity -- a psychologist investigates how Trump's extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency." My printout with large font runs 60 pages. Many who run for political office have huge egos, but that's not the same as being narcissistic. The article explains the component parts of narcissism. Having a large head in and of itself does not make a narcissist.
 

Perhaps SPAM I AM! should check out Michael D'Antonio's 6/7/16 Fortune article "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows" available at:

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

Of course, The Donald claims to be the least racist person in the world, which is sort of a challenge of SPAM I AM!'s claim. Of course SPAM I AM! will holler and scream that that's not evidence, but it's strong evidence compared to usually shaky "evidence" SPAM I AM! presents to support his spurious claims.
 

Also in the NYTimes website check out Steven Lee Myer & another's "How Paul Manafort Wielded Power in Ukraine Before Advising Donald Trump." The plot sickens.
 

Shag:

I am not particularly interested in reading a Democrat with a byline publishing Clinton oppo research as news.

Trump was repeating to a news story of Mexican coyotes raping Central Americans attempting to illegally enter the US.

Trump's proposed suspension on Muslim immigration from terrorist nations is based on religion, not race.

Trump's father is not Trump.

Clinton SOP.

 

We're throwing "narcissist" around pretty loosely here. Consider an online definition:
1. a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.
2. Psychoanalysis. a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

Was Franklin Roosevelt "often vain and selfish"? Truman: "The buck stops here," is that a vain and selfish statement? How about Eisenhower? I am going to skip over Kennedy Johnson and Nixon, despite considering that the legislative expansion of civil and voting rights to African-Americans is Johnson's grand achievement. Ford and Carter often vain and selfish?

In my survey of presidents of the modern era on the vain and selfish continuum, I can't say much about Reagan, who apparently was liable to confuse his roles in movies with his real-life experiences. Nor is Bush Sr vivid enough in my memory to comment.

Mr. Clinton's jeopardizing his political project by loose personal behavior still seems selfish to me, even if the spectacle of the adulterous Republicans pursuing him so pornographically and hypocritically is appalling. But the spectacle of Bush Jr crawling around his desk trying to find those WMDs is just the icing on his cake. As they say, Clinton lied -- nobody died. If no-drama Obama is "overly self-involved and often vain and selfish," this is not what his critics allege.

Trump, however, fits this bill to a T, even the psychoanalytic part: "Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

All those insults, which the Times has collected assiduously at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0, bespeak vanity and selfishness to a startling degree. I've been fortunate not to have a narcissistic bully so close to my life before, and I do hope that come November, he'll be out of it for good.

The point is that it is not a wash. Trump is a narcissistic bully with no ability to control his rages. Ms. Clinton is a mainstream ambitious politician. Trump is the favorite of ISIS, because he fits their narrative of the US against a great religion. He is the favorite of Putin, applauding the destruction of the European project (e.g., with Brexit), and threatening the integrity of NATO. He wants more nuclear proliferation as if the only thing that will stop a bad county with nukes is a good country with nukes.

Trump and his supporters put me in mind of Shakespeare's Henry VI:

CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

But I digress.
 

Bart characteristically leaves out that Hitler and Mussolini were quite the 'rock stars' with the Right, who either found their social darwinism appealing or saw them as effective 'anti-communists.' These proto-Barts thought Roosevelt was a communist dictator and preferred the Nazis to the New Deal. The Liberty League, the forerunner of today's right wing organizations, funded by yesterday's version's of the Koch's, was even implicated in a planned coup involving prominent military figures and veterans to overturn FDR's 'progressive' measures with an explicitly fascist regime. Those conservatives who didn't admire the fascists as anti-communist allies were often isolationists of the America First variety who became rightly known widely as appeasers of Hitler.
 

"Trump's proposed suspension on Muslim immigration from terrorist nations is based on religion, not race."

So it was just religious bigotry, not racial bigotry.

But look, of course Bart is correct. Trump can't be racist, as he himself says, 'the blacks' love him and he loves 'the blacks.' As he says, 'look at my African American over there!'
 

Mr. W: Bart characteristically leaves out that Hitler and Mussolini were quite the 'rock stars' with the Right, who either found their social darwinism appealing or saw them as effective 'anti-communists.

What Republicans considered Hitler or Mussolini to be political rock stars and attempted to enact their policies?

BD: "Trump's proposed suspension on Muslim immigration from terrorist nations is based on religion, not race."

Mr. W: So it was just religious bigotry, not racial bigotry.

Religious discrimination to counter religious terrorism would be a more accurate description.

 

Apparently SPAM I AM! is not aware that many Muslims are people of color. Religious bigotry may include racial bigotry; they are not always distinct. (Many Mexicans are Catholic and people of color.)

As to The Donald not being his father, it was The Donald who took a shine to Joe McCarthy's lawyer Roy Cohn (and vice versa) to represent the Trumps in this federal housing discrimination case. And Dan McAdams' The Atlantic article makes reference to this matter in assessing The Donald's narcissism.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Bart,

Looks like you need to educate yourself on the Liberty League and it's role in support for fascism and America First and it's record of appeasement. You might start here:

http://jewishcurrents.org/doing-business-with-hitler-40606#more-40606
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/38255

"Religious discrimination to counter religious terrorism would be a more accurate description."

Bigots always have some reason they give for their bigotry.
 

Shag:

We all have color and Muslims come in all the shades of human skin.

The young Donald taking a shine to Roy Cohn makes Donald a racist?

Grasping.
 

Mr. W:

I noted the fact that American progressives considered Hitler and Mussolini to be political rock stars and enacted many of their policies into law, the most notable being the NRA and the CCC. Progressives enacted dozens more fascist policies over the years, although they never called them fascist, which are described at length in Charlotte Twight's America's Emerging Fascist Economy. Socialist, fascists and progressives freely shared policy over the past century.

Your analogy to the Liberty League is not remotely the same thing.

Are you aware of any Republican conservatives of the Calvin Coolidge wing of the party who considered Hitler and Mussolini to be political rock stars and enacted any of their policies into law?
 

Discussion of the Muslim matter also showed that racism factored in as well. The same applied to the "Mexicans are a nationality" defense. ("defense")

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BD: "Religious discrimination to counter religious terrorism would be a more accurate description."

Mr. W: Bigots always have some reason they give for their bigotry.

The prophylactic reasoning, if we bar entry of all Muslims, then we bar entry of Muslim terrorists, is not remotely the same thing as hating all Muslims because they are Muslims.
 

Apparently SPAM I AM! hasn't grasped the role Roy Cohn played in the career of The Donald, starting with that federal housing discrimination case.
 

Are you really ignorant of the roots of the modern American Right? The American Liberty League was the largest group in opposition to the New Deal, they were you're forerunners arguing that FDR was a dictator and his progressive policies tantamount to communism. It was funded by wealthy industrialists in much the same way that conservative organizations today are funded by the Koch brothers, it targeted college students in much the same way as well. They definitely espoused a 'classical liberal' opposition to the New Deal, but it also was involved in anti-Semitic and racist activities (trying to stir up Southern opposition to Roosevelt.)

America First was another anti-Roosevelt organization full of right wingers like Ohio's Taft who pushed for appeasement in dealing with Hitler that would have made Chamberlin blush.

Hitler was well aware of his ability to appeal to the Right in both Europe and the US by appealing to their shared anti-communism.


 

"if we bar entry of all Muslims, then we bar entry of Muslim terrorists, is not remotely the same thing as hating all Muslims because they are Muslims."

Both are based on the same unifying principle of bigots: assuming some problem involving some members of a group can be generalized to all. If you ask white supremacists of today or yesterday they would tell you that we must have certain policies dealing with blacks in general because of blacks alleged disproportionate negative tendencies and their threat to whites. It's the same reasoning.
 

The 50th Anniversary of "In the Heat of the Night" passed recently -- got around to reading the actual book -- and it would be interesting if some form of that was written with a Muslim protagonist ("They call me Mr. Khan.")
 

Mr. W:

Prophylactic bars on immigration by wartime enemy nationalities and internment of enemy nationals who are here is standard wartime policy.

We now have our first religious war and Trump offered a comparable prophylactic policy against immigration of enemy coreligionists,

Such preventative policies are temporary for the duration of the war and do not represent some sort of ongoing bigotry.
 

What does the Constitution say about SPAM I AM!'s:

We now have our first religious war ... "

especially the role of Congress. And is the C-I-C also the Preacher-in-Chief? And "temporary for the duration of the war"? Consider the size of the world's Muslim population. and who are the " ... enemy nationals who are here is standard wartime policy." Does tThe Donald as President set the "standard"?

SPAM I AM! continues to be an enabler of Trump. Even John McCain has finally spoken out, although he hasn't withdrawn his endorsement of Trump. Recall the treatment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, American citizens of color and a different religion than American Christianity.
 

Here's what SPAM I AM! said at 9:03 AM:

"We all have color and Muslims come in all the shades of human skin."

This brought to mind a high school science class in the mid 1940s learning that black is the absence of color and that white is a combination of all colors. I haven't checked to see if the science has changed. But in American political life, color, including various shadings, has played a significant role, and continues to do so. SPAM I AM! saying "we all have color" ignores what has happened in American for those of color. The Donald's base of his Republican Party consisting of older undereducated white men is their overreaction to the changing demographics, that base presumably believing in Trump's own words "I alone can fix it."
 

Shag: who are the " ... enemy nationals who are here is standard wartime policy." Does tThe Donald as President set the "standard"?

I am not very familiar with immigration law, but I suspect that Congress has given the president the authority or the president has taken the authority under his CiC power to bar immigration of wartime enemy nationals and to intern enemy nationals inside the US. Wilson did this during WWI and Roosevelt during WWII.

Recall the treatment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor

Trump is not proposing to reenact the Democrat internment of Japanese-Americans.

 

Such preventative policies are temporary for the duration of the war and do not represent some sort of ongoing bigotry.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:56 AM

So it only lasts until all Muslims convert to Christianity, right?

 

That's a pitiful analogy, we're officially allied with most Muslim nations.

Of course, bigots always give some kind of security reason for why they must discriminate against entire groups, whether it's to 'protect white women' from allegedly predatory black men or to protect us from the relatively small number of Islamic jihadist by banning all followers of Islam.
 

"the Democrat internment of Japanese-Americans"

Who were the notable Republican dissenters to FDR's decision?
 

"That's a pitiful analogy, we're officially allied with most Muslim nations."

Yeah, we were officially allied with Stalin for most of WWII. That didn't mean he wasn't our enemy, just that we'd agreed to set that aside until Hitler was dealt with.

It's somewhat the same with many of the Muslim nations we're allied with. We're allied with the Saudis, and their subsidies for the spread of Islam, and not a nice sect of it, are in large measure responsible for how much Islamic terrorism the world is dealing with today. 9-11 was perpetrated by Saudi nationals, and that's no accident.

War leads to strange bedfellows, but alliance in battle doesn't erase fundamental conflict.
 

Mr. W:

The Democrats dominated the national government in 1941. Any dissent by the Republicans was academic.
 

"The Democrats dominated the national government in 1941. Any dissent by the Republicans was academic."

So you can cite no Republican dissent? I thought so.
 

Brett, your post helps my position. We didn't bar all Russian immigration while we fought Germany and Italy.

Of course, Bart's analogy is even weaker than this, for there is no declared war on Muslims in general.
 

Mr. W:

I have better things to do that research your irrelevancies.

The unconstitutional and illegal internment of Japanese-Americans was a 100% Democrat policy.

Own it.
 

Mr. W: Bart's analogy is even weaker than this, for there is no declared war on Muslims in general.

Trump is proposing a temporary suspension of immigration from nations controlled to some extent by the Islamic fascists with which we are at war, not all Muslims from any nation.

This is no different from barring immigration from enemy nations during WWI and WWII, except that Trump's immigration proposal is more narrowly tailored and he is not suggesting interning foreign citizens of terrorist nations who reside here.
 

Trump is proposing a temporary suspension of immigration from nations controlled to some extent by the Islamic fascists with which we are at war, not all Muslims from any nation.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:02 PM

What are the criteria for the nations being banned? Because the criteria for "Islamic fascist" appears to be "Muslim". How does he determine when the ban ends? All Muslims converted to Christianity?

 

While SPAM I AM! "rejoinders" Mr. W with:

"I have better things to do that research your irrelevancies."

the better things SPAM I AM! has to do is research his own inanities.
 

bb: What are the criteria for the nations being banned?

Run in whole or in part by Islamic fascist groups. See Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

Because the criteria for "Islamic fascist" appears to be "Muslim"

Only to the willfully ignorant. The vast majority of Muslim nations are not run by Islamic fascist groups.
 

Bart,

Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” He rightly got backlash on that, including from his now running mate who called it " offensive and unconstitutional." He has since tried to have his cake and eat it too, saying he's calling for bans from countries 'compromised by' or with a 'proven history of' terrorism against the US, Europe and it's allies. Trump has said he doesn't consider this a narrowing of his position, but an expansion, suggesting it would bar immigration from countries like France and Germany (ironically, I think the US has had more Islamic terrorist attacks than Germany, I guess following Trump's logic they should bar all Americans!).

But, even if he is only calling for a ban for "nations controlled to some extent by the Islamic fascists with which we are at war" that is demonstrably "different from barring immigration from enemy nations during WWI and WWII," because we did not, for example, bar immigration from all people from nation's in which the Nazis, fascists or Japanese held some territory.

What's worse is that you'd align yourself with the morally horrible policy of turning away all German immigrants and asylum seekers which doomed so many Jews to the Holocaust.
 

bb: What are the criteria for the nations being banned?

Run in whole or in part by Islamic fascist groups. See Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 4:09 PM

That isn't "criteria", that is pure uncut bullshit. The only thing those countries have in common is lots of Muslims.

Although, it's interesting that you're ok with letting almost all the 9/11 attackers into the country...

 

"The unconstitutional and illegal internment of Japanese-Americans was a 100% Democrat policy."

Actually, one of the drivers of it was California's then GOP attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Earl Warren.

BTW, you know who represented Korematsu? The ACLU. Spin that spin doctor.
 

"Islamic fascists with which we are at war"

Also, we are not at war, at least in any legal sense, with 'Islamic fascists.' We have a congressional authorization "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons," but that's not the same thing as "Islamic fascists" whatever that is.
 

Blogger Mista Whiskas said...
but that's not the same thing as "Islamic fascists" whatever that is.

Muslims
 

Mr. W:

FDR assembled a commission to issue propaganda supporting detention and then issued Executive Order 9066 to the military to unconstitutionally detain Japanese-Americans. Warren was not part of this process. Own it.

Al Qeada, its allies and state sponsors are a pretty good approximation of the Islamic fascist movement. The jihadis offer the fascist politics of scapegoating Christians and Jews for oppressing Islam and promising that they will restore Islam to its former glory with a world Caliphate.

bb:

Depending on the polling, about 10-15% of Muslims support Islamic fascism. Pretending that this movement is not Islamic is the worst kind of self delusion and should preclude one from serving as POTUS.
 

Depending on the polling, about 10-15% of Muslims support Islamic fascism. Pretending that this movement is not Islamic is the worst kind of self delusion and should preclude one from serving as POTUS.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:55 PM

Islamic fascism isn't a thing, you racist piece of shit. It's nothing more than an attempt to smear an entire religion for the actions of a few terrorists.
 

SPAM I AM! is parroting the Cruz Canadacy's immigration policy on Muslims, which substantially coincides with the Trump immigration policy on Muslims. Turds of a feather stick together.
 

bb:

Correctly identifying Nazis as fascists is not calling all Christians fascists.

Correctly identifying jihadis as fascists is likewise not calling all Muslims fascists.

Why are you progressives so ready to excuse evil???


 

"FDR assembled a commission to issue propaganda supporting detention and then issued Executive Order 9066 to the military to unconstitutionally detain Japanese-Americans. Warren was not part of this process."

Do you mean the Tolan Commission, which Warren was a star of? The Roberts Commission, which was led by the only Republican on the SCOTUS at the time? Face it, Bart, it was bi-partisan all the way. But one can go further: the biggest boosters were conservative groups like the American Legion, those who took a stand against it were...the most progressive group then and today, the ACLU.

"Al Qeada, its allies and state sponsors are a pretty good approximation of the Islamic fascist movement."

That's ridiculous, there are many groups involved both now and over the time period since the 9/11 attacks. But more so, 'close approximations' don't satisfy the requirements for a legally established declaration of war. There is no declared war on 'Islamic jihadists,' your analogy has many problems but perhaps most fundamentally it's predicate is not there.

"about 10-15% of Muslims support Islamic fascism. Pretending that this movement is not Islamic is the worst kind of self delusion "

So what's 'Islamic' is defined not by the 90-85% who don't agree but the 10-15% who do? You've always had some wacky concepts and definitions for them, but this might be the cherry on the top of the nonsense sundae you've been building for years here.

By Bart's logic anything that polls at 10-15% among, say, conservatives makes that belief a bona fide conservative one, and any disagreement is 'delusion'. This should be fun...

 

"Why are you progressives so ready to excuse evil???"

Why are you conservatives so ready to provide aid and comfort to evil?

Because that's what ISIS and jihadists want, to be equated with Islam and to be said to be truly Islamic. They want that, it's how they recruit, their fear is to be marginalized within the Islamic community. They want to be seen as 'true Islam' and they want to convince the majority of Muslims who do not share their opinion about the West that the West doesn't want or care for them. They have useful idiots like yourself to do their work for them.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BD: "Al Qeada, its allies and state sponsors are a pretty good approximation of the Islamic fascist movement."

Mr. W: That's ridiculous, there are many groups involved both now and over the time period since the 9/11 attacks. But more so, 'close approximations' don't satisfy the requirements for a legally established declaration of war. There is no declared war on 'Islamic jihadists,' your analogy has many problems but perhaps most fundamentally it's predicate is not there.

Three points.

1) al Qaeda is a very broad umbrella of loosely aligned jihadi groups which have several state sponsors. We are at declared war with the vast majority of Islamic fascist movement.

2) You do not need a declaration of war to defend the nation against a nation or a group at war with you. That covers the rest of the Islamic fascist movement.

3) If you follow the Clinton and Obama precedent, you do not need no stinking declaration at all.

BD: "about 10-15% of Muslims support Islamic fascism. Pretending that this movement is not Islamic is the worst kind of self delusion "

Mr. W: So what's 'Islamic' is defined not by the 90-85% who don't agree but the 10-15% who do?

Islamic is hardly monolithic. There are two major sects - the Sunni and Shia, which each have multiple sub-sects. Among these is a large fascist movement which consists of a couple hundred million Muslims across the world.
 

Mr. W: Because that's what ISIS and jihadists want, to be equated with Islam and to be said to be truly Islamic.

On what planet to you live?

Dude, the Islamic fascists believe that they are the true Islam and the soldiers of Allah. They are in no way, shape or form dependent upon the Great Satan to give them religious legitimacy.

Do you honestly think that if you decline to call them Islamic that they will be unable to recruit and will fade away?
 

Correctly identifying Nazis as fascists is not calling all Christians fascists.

Correctly identifying jihadis as fascists is likewise not calling all Muslims fascists.

Why are you progressives so ready to excuse evil???


# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:26 PM

Dumbfuck, calling them Islamic fascists only smears all Muslims, and you gain absolutely nothing by smearing Muslims who are not terrorists. That seems pretty fucking obvious. It's not "excusing evil", it's not doing stupid shit. Which appears to be too difficult for racist scum like you to understand.
 

Just finished reading "What Is Veiling?" by Sahar Amer, which was an interesting analysis.

It focuses on Islamic practice though reminds that it is not just practiced by that faith. For instance, the covering of women's heads is instructed in Pauline epistles, reflecting common cultural practice at the time. And, the clothing favored by more conservative Muslims also is often used by Orthodox Jews and other faiths too.

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/09/22/veiling-book-amer
 

bb:

Correctly identifying Islamic fascism as Islamic is not the insult to Islam. The very existence of the Islamic fascist movement is the insult to Islam.

When Christan Serbs slaughtered Muslims in Bosnia, the rest of Christanity publicly and vocally condemned them and NATO went to war against their coreligionists to stop them. THAT is what I expect from Islam towards the Islamic fascists.
 

The very existence of the Islamic fascist movement is the insult to Islam.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:43 PM

The existence of "the Islamic fascist movement" is a racist wingnut fever dream. It's not a real thing. It's racist bullshit.
 

The confused might think two people here are supporting Trump, bottom line.
 

"So what's 'Islamic' is defined not by the 90-85% who don't agree but the 10-15% who do?"

If you've got a religion where 85% of the members are "live and let live", and 15% think it's reasonable to murder you if you don't convert to their religion and support creating a theocracy, and you have no reliable way of telling the 15% from the 85% except for waiting for them to commit murder, you've got a bit of a problem, no? It's like having a bag of cookies where 15% of them are made with a deadly poison, and no way to tell which.

Do you eat from that bag? Or do you treat it as a bag of poisoned cookies?

Compounding the problem is that Muslims who already reside legally in the US have rights, and you can't properly violate those rights just because they belong to the religion of Jihad.

But, Muslims who don't already reside legally in the US have no right whatsoever to reside here, so you violate no right of their's by just flatly barring their entry.

We might have to take some chances with the cookies already in our hands, but we can take the bag, close it, and set it aside until we actually find some way to sort it.

Or we can eat from the bag, knowing full well that 15% of the cookies we eat will be poisoned.

Trump gets a lot of support from people who don't want to eat those cookies.
 

Brett's:

"Trump gets a lot of support from people who don't want to eat those cookies."

suggests how Brett and these people of his ilk think while considering eating Oreos.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"2)You do not need a declaration of war to defend the nation against a nation or a group at war with you. That covers the rest of the Islamic fascist movement.

3) If you follow the Clinton and Obama precedent, you do not need no stinking declaration at all."

You do because your argument about barring certain foreign nationals is predicated upon being at war, you're analogies all involve it.

"Islamic is hardly monolithic. There are two major sects - the Sunni and Shia, which each have multiple sub-sects."

Then don't be foolish and generalize when you speak about them. Especially when we're trying to win the hearts and minds of the majority of them who you concede don't fall into what you're talking about. Look how apoplectic you got about people talking about 'right wing' domestic terrorists based on the existence of an actual minority of nuts with beliefs overlapping the mainstream right wing in areas and in rhetoric. What if our government said, 'those guys are true conservatives!' Is that the feeling you want to invoke in the Islamic majority?

"On what planet to you live?"

On the planet where you do not grant your enemy the very legitimacy they seek. You especially don't grant it when you're trying to win the hearts and minds of millions of people who are potential recruits but who take their faith seriously. Insulting their faith with silly generalizations gives aid and comfort to our enemy.

"Dude, the Islamic fascists believe that they are the true Islam and the soldiers of Allah."

Yes, it's very important to them to believe this and that other's believe this. If they were seen as actually being un-Islamic the narrative of legitimacy they use to maintain morale and recruit would be undercut. This is why both administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, that have been combating them have of course refused to grant them the very legitimacy they desire. As bb says, we gain nothing and lose much by such foolishness. Wars are not won by invoking magic words, but the foolish use of words, alienating needed allies and empowering our enemies, can help lose them.






 

I'm surprised that there has been no reaction to my comment on the Max Boot NYTimes OpEd (still accessible at the website) and what it says about the Republican Party and its future. At the least someone might have referred to the "I'M WITH STUPID!" T-shirts for VP Sarah Palin. Boot was over-the-top gung ho for the Bush/Cheney 8 years. But Boot seems to be in denial about his own role in the Stupid Party. Republicans are still in the first stage of denial, pointing fingers, but inaccurately as does Max Boot. They need to look in the mirror. Then they can truly get angry with themselves for allowing the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention highjack the GOP.

7:35 AM
 

Brett,

Aren't you married to a Filipino immigrant? Under Trump's latest iteration of his immigration policy where nations that are 'compromised' with Islamic jihadist terrorism or have a 'proven history' of such terrorism are barred, wouldn't your marriage not exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_Philippines#2014

In other words, why are you bringing your potentially poisoned cookie to our pot luck?
 

As Stephen Colbert has pointed out, Werds matter.
 

A more interesting point, given this blog's raison d'etre, is would modern jurisprudence support the constitutionality of a religious based bar of immigrants.

It's interesting to note that there is not an explicit grant of a power to restrict immigration in the list of Art. I powers of the federal government, SCOTUS has used a shifting set of, usually extra-textual, arguments to find such a power for the federal government. But, assuming arguendo such a power exists, could it be used to bar someone based on criteria that in other government action would be constitutionally suspect? Locating the power to restrict immigration in an extra-textual plenary power that all governments can be implied to have, in the past SCOTUS has ruled that immigrants could be barred by race. Recently, in a 5-4 decision involving a case of a woman suing on the denial of entry to her husband SCOTUS spoke of immigrants not in US territory as having no constitutional rights to press (Kennedy, in his key concurrence, was iirc not as conclusive on this point).

It seems to me that it's been thought of as the Constitution not protecting non-citizens in foreign countries, but why isn't it thought of in terms of: are these the kinds of things our government is allowed to do, period whether it involves citizens or far flung non citizens. For example, the First Amendment says 'Congress shall make no law' about several things. No law. It seems to me that means no law, regardless of the context. Just as Congress could make no law blocking speech coming from non-citizen foreigners, they shouldn't be able to make laws establishing a religion or free exercise (I think a religious based bar on immigrants would be in the former category).
 

No, not really.

You have to distinguish between nations where there is a certain degree of Islamic terrorism, (Such as the Philippines, or France.) and nations where the Islamic terrorists have so compromised the existing system that they're in control of large parts of it.

My wife, as part of the immigration process, had to undergo a background check, which was run by the Philippine authorities. The Philippine government is not run by the terrorists, and is, despite the terrorism, quite functional, and there is no evidence that they've been substantially penetrated by terrorist sympathizers. So, it was a legitimate, reliable background check. If she'd had a record of involvement in criminality or terrorism, it would have come to light.

And, even so, if she had come from one of the hotbeds of Philippine terrorism, like Southern Mindanao, instead of the peaceful northern Mindanao city of Cagayan de Oro, we might have had a hard time of it.

Contrast this with immigrants from Syria, for instance. Syria is in the middle of a civil war. Large parts of the country are held by the terrorists, who have achieved sufficient dominance to comprise an alternative government. Even in the areas the old Syrian government still has control of, their institutions are thoroughly penetrated by terrorist sympathizers.

So, it really isn't possible to run a reliable background check on refugees from Syria. Most of the records are destroyed or inaccessible, you can't be sure the records you do get are real or fabricated to conceal terrorist operatives. You can probably rely on a bad report, but a positive report doesn't mean squat.

That's a real difference that just can't be blown off: When the civil institutions that we rely on to provide the information that we're checking are destroyed or internally compromised, the checks simply can't be done reliably. It's no use pretending otherwise. You can't actually do a background check on somebody coming out of a place like Syria.
 

A little Googling led me to Martin Longman, Washington Monthly 8/1/16 article "How the 'Racist Party' Created Donald Trump" that addresses Max Boot's OpEd, available at:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/01/how-the-racist-party-created-donald-trump/
 

Query: Did the Philippine authorities do a background check on Brett with a view to protecting the interests of his wife?
 

"My wife, as part of the immigration process, had to undergo a background check, which was run by the Philippine authorities. "

This is the government ranked in the bottom half of all nations (95 out of 168) on the corruption index you invoked recently? Am I supposed to feel safe on those grounds, that the corrupt Philippine government passed on the background of your wife, who is from a country with one of the more proven and sustained histories of Islamic terrorism out there?

https://www.transparency.org/country/#PHL

 

May we assume that the corruption index position of the Philippines may be contributed to from sources outside the Philippines?
 

"Query: Did the Philippine authorities do a background check on Brett with a view to protecting the interests of his wife?"

Absolutely. As well as running her through a mandatory course on how to escape a bad situation and contact Philippine authorities in an emergency. If you're leaving on a fiancée or spousal visa, you can't get an exit visa from the Philippines without proof you passed that class.

In fact, the US government won't let you apply for such a visa on our end, if you don't pass a background check.

"This is the government ranked in the bottom half of all nations (95 out of 168) on the corruption index you invoked recently?"

Yeah. You can be in the bottom half of the corruption index, and still have a functioning civic society. But countries like Syria don't have even that.
 

Mr. W: It's interesting to note that there is not an explicit grant of a power to restrict immigration in the list of Art. I powers of the federal government, SCOTUS has used a shifting set of, usually extra-textual, arguments to find such a power for the federal government. But, assuming arguendo such a power exists, could it be used to bar someone based on criteria that in other government action would be constitutionally suspect?

Art. I, Sec. 9 grants Congress the power to prohibit the migration of persons starting in 1808. This was meant to apply to the slave trade, but the drafters used the term persons.

Art. II also grants the President CiC power, which would include defending the nation from invasion.

There is no right to immigrate into the United States. Congress can prohibit any group it wishes and the President can arguably bar any group which includes enemy combatants attempting to invade the United States.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws to and bars religious tests of the the people of the United States, a group which does not include foreign citizens residing overseas.

That being said, I fully expect the Supreme Court which extended the writ of habeas corpus to foreign enemy combatants to extend the People's rights to foreign immigrants.
 

I think I and Brett may have been understating the terrorism problem in the Philippines, they are ranked ELEVENTH our of 124 on the Global Terrorism Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index

 

Art. I, Sec. 9-you've already answered this, this was clearly about slaves

Art. II also grants the President CiC power, which would include defending the nation from invasion.-immigration =/= invasion

"does not include foreign citizens residing overseas. "

You missed my argument completely.

"The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws to and bars religious tests of the the people of the United States, a group which does not include foreign citizens residing overseas"

Remember, under current SCOTUS precedent the 5th Amendment DP clause contains an EP clause operative upon the federal government.
 

Brett recently referred to the US corruption index rank of 16th to indicate we are on the precipice of being a 'banana republic.' Now he invokes the reliability of a government with a score SIX TIMES worse to try to distinguish his importation of someone from the 11th most 'proven history' of terrorism from what Trump proposes and he supports. Wow.
 

The difference is this: Will the background check be run by a government beset by terrorism, or end up being run by the terrorists themselves?

Seriously, Mista Whiskas, how do you suppose the Syrian government can do a reliable background check on somebody, when they don't even control 60% of their nominal territory, and their institutions are rotten with infiltrators working for the terrorists?

There's a world of difference between someplace like the Philippines, where a lot of politicians are on the take, and someplace like Syria, where the government is losing a civil war.
 

Mr. W:

The Constitution means what it says and the Sec. 9 power is nowhere limited to slaves, but rather applies to all migrating persons.

Because foreigners have no right to immigrate into the United States, the government is not denying them anything by imposing a prohibition of immigration and, thus, there is no due process necessary here for a denial of a right or equal protection of that right.
 

I'll let Mr. W. handle Brett, including on the question of differences that at the end of the day refutes what Mr. W. is saying. Good luck with that.

On the question of immigration power, Justice Alito in the first Jerusalem passport case (Zivofsky v. Kerry) noted:

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and this power includes the power to regulate the entry of persons into this country, see Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259, 270-271 (1876).

The earlier opinion has this interesting sentiment:

It has become a part of our commerce with foreign nations, of vast interest to this country, as well as to the immigrants who come among us to find a welcome and a home within our borders. In addition to the wealth which some of them bring, they bring still more largely the labor which we need to till our soil, build our railroads, and develop the latent resources of the country in its minerals, its manufactures, and its agriculture. Is the regulation of this great system a regulation of commerce? Can it be doubted that a law which prescribes the terms on which vessels shall engage in it is a law regulating this branch of commerce?

Of course, that was the era when the federal government was starting to truly focus on who doesn't deserve to be allowed in. This was previously more a concern of the states, concerned about "moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts" (NY v. Miln (1837) and of course, ahem, black people.

Mr. W. references Kerry v. Din. As noted, Kennedy (and Alito) concurred in judgment, so Scalia's plurality opinion is of limited value. As they noted, "But rather than deciding, as the plurality does, whether Din has a protected liberty interest, my view is that, even assuming she does, the notice she received regarding her husband’s visa denial satisfied due process." Four justices dissented, arguing for that liberty interest.

The plurality does reference an earlier opinion as referencing "Congress’ plenary power to “suppl[y] the conditions of the privilege of entry into the United States." Mr. W. is on point imho regarding the 1A. The matter was touched upon by Kleindienst v. Mandel, where the 1A argument was rejected as applied to those facts. But, (1) that opinion might have been wrong (2) it left open some 1A argument. Thus, e.g., only allowing Christians to immigrate seems to me -- at least without a compelling state interest (the 1A has never been absolute) -- would run counter to its terms.

Over our history, Congress (more than the states themselves -- see, e.g., Plyer v. Doe) has been given power to exclude certain nationalities, which is an exception of the general command not to discriminate by alienage (as applied to the federal government, a matter of due process). Precedent doesn't make this necessarily good constitutional policy as our history has shown. Still, even there, singling out a specific race or religion would to me be more problematic.

This is so even if the Supreme Court in broad terms speaks of a federal power to exclude aliens. Aliens are "persons" and as Mr. W. notes, various constitutional provisions generally stop the federal government from doing things. OTOH, non-libertarians trust the federal government with more power.
 

Couple more things.

The DOI charges:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

The Statute of Liberty is in my harbor, but either way, this helps the argument that if you are going to stop immigration, better have a very good reason. Again, one can take a less libertarian approach and trust the feds. OTOH, Mr. W. is voting Libertarian this year, so I can see the disagreement.

As to Article IX (not XII):

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This is found among limits of congressional power. It temporarily stops Congress from prohibiting "migration" or "importation," the latter probably referencing slaves. But, the former sounds general. See, e.g., NY v. Miln, which includes state power over entry of paupers, those deemed diseased, etc. If the U.S. in 1800 tried to block the entry of those with smallpox, e.g., and a state deemed it safe, this provision seems to deem that unconstitutional. It would be a state's decision.

The clause also implies that there would be a power to block entry though arguably it might just be there if someone (wrongly) suggested there was one. Then, you are left with determining where said power lies.

 

Interesting that the criteria for keeping out Muslims will still allow them in from a country that is corrupt and full of terrorists. This "ban Muslims" idea might not be as foolproof as you morons think it's going to be.
 

bb:

You are correct.

Trump's better approach is to broadly apply vetting to any nation with terrorist activity and then strictly enforce the vetting by ordering his Sec DHS to personally certify that an immigrant from these nations is not a terrorist before issuing a visa. Immigration will come to a screeching halt without any legislation or executive Muslim ban orders.
 

We already vet immigrants, you imbecile.
 

We might need to vet for spam more carefully. Anyone need a cleaning company?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

bb:

In the case of refugees, we generally admit and then vet. The Bush administration ended up admitting AQI, who were only identified later when they bragged about killing Americans.

The vetting process itself is a joke because Islamic fascists do not self identify as such and DHS has no access to terrorist group records of their members and supporters.

If you make the top bureaucrat personally certify that an immigrant is not a terrorist, none will be willing to make that certification based on our useless vetting process only to have the immigrant turn terrorist mass murderer.

 

So we'd allow no immigrants? That seems a little harsh for a "threat" that kills fewer people than lightning (which I believe you consider the gold standard for threats).
 

bb:

I agree that defensive measures like Trump's proposed "Muslim ban" are nearly useless. My only point is that Trump can easily implement his plan under current law with an executive order to the bureaucracy.

The only way to destroy the Islamic fascist movement is to bring the war to their territory in an alliance with Islamic nations, clear and then hold the territory. Basically what we accomplished in Iraq before Obama pulled out and ended the hold part of the counter insurgency strategy.
 

Bart,

"the Constitution means what it says and the Sec. 9 power is nowhere limited to slaves, but rather applies to all migrating persons."

I think Illya Somin's article from Volokh Conspiracy deals with this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/

"Because foreigners have no right to immigrate into the United States, the government is not denying them anything by imposing a prohibition of immigration and, thus, there is no due process necessary here for a denial of a right or equal protection of that right."

You're still not getting my argument at all. Go back and take another run.



 

Brett,

If Trump's proposal was to temporarily restrict immigration from failed states regions that might be more reasonable. But that's not what's he's said: what he's said is he wants to restrict it from countries with a 'proven history of terrorism' or that have been 'compromised' by terrorism. The Philippines is the eleventh worst such nation, outranking Saudi Arabia which you discussed earlier. Trump is literally offering a proposal under which your own wife would not have been allowed to immigrate to be with you, and you're defending it!
 

"The only way to destroy the Islamic fascist movement is to bring the war to their territory in an alliance with Islamic nations"

And a great way to do this would be to insult those nations by talking about the true Islamic nature of the jihadists!
 

I'll put this here because I don't see any obvious place for it otherwise:

My earlier prediction that Trump supporters would not accept the election, but would be too scattered to do anything about it seems half-vindicated today based on comments by Trump himself and some of his surrogates. I really hope I'm right about the second half.
 

Mark Field appears to be referencing Trump's rather preemptive suggestion that the election won't be aboveboard. The comment is far from surprising since simply admitting he was fairly beaten would be rather hard for him. Even opponents of his own making must be denounced in such a fashion. At some point, it comes off as a tad deranged. But, if you use strong language like that, it basically just gives his supporters proof of their validity. Neat trick.

As to the second half, current events does make one far from on total safe ground regarding assurances that the deranged will not lash out in horrible fashion.
 

Mr. W:

Professor Somin is engaged in an original intent exercise. Unless the text of a Constitutional provision is vague, courts should not engage in these historical snipe hunts. The terms persons and migration are not vague. Indeed, the addition of the term migration suggests that this provision reaches beyond the slave trade because such trade can hardly be considered a voluntary migration.

I do not have the time to provide you with a class on due process, but I would note that the right to due process is only triggered when the government attempts to take away a right or liberty possessed by an individual. Foregners have no right or liberty to immigrate into our country.
 

It is said that when Trump's college draft deferment was ending and he got a note from his doctor to take to the draft board he exclaimed: "Feet, fail me now!" (Back then The Donald was not orange but some other shade of the spectrum.)
 

Blogger Bart DePalma said...
bb:

The only way to destroy the Islamic fascist movement is to bring the war to their territory in an alliance with Islamic nations, clear and then hold the territory. Basically what we accomplished in Iraq before Obama pulled out and ended the hold part of the counter insurgency strategy.


That is ridiculous nonsense. Beginning to end.
 

"I do not have the time to provide you with a class on due process"

My main argument wasn't about due process, it was about the First Amendment.
 

More on why the Migration Clause is inapt:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/60/slave-trade

 

I don't find that overly convincing.

Obviously, the specific concern was slavery. But, the text is more open-ended.
 

On the text issue, and without reading the Heritage link which may preempt my point, it's interesting that the Alien Act of 1798 authorized the President to deport/remove aliens of any nationality he considered dangerous. The Alien Enemies Act authorized similar action by the President in the case of the citizens of a nation with which we were at war.
 

Wikipedia (Alien and Sedition Acts) notes:

"While government authorities prepared lists of aliens for deportation, many aliens fled the country during the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Adams never signed a deportation order."

It's sourced w/o a link, but recall reading the "never" part in the past.

Both parts of acts were challenged in part on grounds they invaded the power of the states. The clause in question was cited in support. See, e.g.:

"Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808" that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void."

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/us/c_alien.html

Figure this application wasn't really raised in 1787 (maybe someone brought it up) but the open-ended language invites it.
 

Mr. W:

OK, I'll bite. How do you believe the 1A bars Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration from terrorist countries?
 

To get back to the theme of Sandy's post, check out at Eric Posner's Blog his post "Is Trump a Threat to the Constitutional Order?" that references Sandy's post and Jack Balkin's initial post following Sandy's. Eric says Trump is not crazy. But check out Jack's follow up post at this Blog updating his first post. Is TrumpoCrazy built into the Constitution or will it get Sandy his second constitutional convention?

While pondering this question, enjoy Patsy Cline singing "Crazy" at the GOO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYtrGjJOMpE

(It is followed by Patsy's "I Fall to Pieces," which seems appropriate.)
 

Bart, this largely captures the argument.

https://www.justsecurity.org/28221/missing-constitutional-analyses-donald-trumps-muslim-immigration-ban/

 

Beware SPAM I AM!'s bite in his efforts to revive the zombie Cruz Canadacy.
 

Mr. W:

The Establishment Clause is a structural limitation on congressional power, barring it from establishing a state religion, Mr. Trump's proposal does not establish a state religion. If we apply the far more expansive twentieth century application of the EC ("No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs"), Mr. Trump's proposal does not "punish" foreign citizens residing overseas because it takes nothing away from them. There is no right to immigrate into the United States.

The Free Exercise Clause arguments and defenses are essentially the same.

As I noted above, however, the Court which extended habeas corpus to foreign POWs (in the generic sense) for the first time in centuries of Anglo-American law could very well rewrite the 1A and Art. I, sec, 9 to reverse Mr. Trump's ban.

Professor Posner correctly noted: "Not everything that is stupid or offensive is unconstitutional." However, the courts often use laws they consider to be stupid and offensive to rewrite the Constitution. (See, e.g., abortion, SSM and detaining foreign terrorists during a seemingly endless war).


 

It seems to me the argument there isn't that the precedent doesn't favor Trump's proposal being declared constitutional, but rather that the Supreme court might be prepared to abandon that precedent.

Maybe it might, but that doesn't mean the precedent, right now, doesn't go the other way.
 

The First Amendment is a restriction on what Congress can do, it says Congress shall make no law...etc., etc.,. It's not about the immigrant's rights or lack thereof, it's an area in which Congress can't act. A Muslim immigration ban would be establishing a religious test as part of policy, favoring (endorsing) some religions over others. It likewise would involve the US government in ascertaining who are 'really' Muslims which would involve Establishment Clause issues.
 

To take an example, could the US bar speech from a non-citizen from coming into the US? Consider Trump's proposed blocking of internet sites from certain places. I'd argue the case wouldn't be about whether the non-citizen has a right to free speech in the US but about whether the federal government can make laws on such a topic. I think the literal reading of the First Amendment is, nope.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W.'s case works in at least two ways -- certain things basically are deemed wrongful uses of government power (e.g., establishing a religion on an island somewhere abroad) and things like blocking internet sites inhibit rights of citizens.

(For instance, there has long been a right to receive information.)
 

Mr. W:The First Amendment is a restriction on what Congress can do, it says Congress shall make no law...etc., etc.,. It's not about the immigrant's rights or lack thereof, it's an area in which Congress can't act. A Muslim immigration ban would be establishing a religious test as part of policy, favoring (endorsing) some religions over others.

I understand, but disagree, with your reasoning.

As written, the EC structural limits Congress's powers so that it cannot establish a state religion. The twentieth century courts expanded the EC to limit Congress from punishing one religion and thereby theoretically favoring all others. However, Congress cannot penalize someone by taking away something to which she is not entitled. Foreigners have no right to immigrate into the United States.

The courts have used some variation of this reasoning in upholding all manner of discrimination in immigration policy.
 

SPAM I AM! disagrees with Mr. W's reasoning. Then SPAM I AM! comes up with his ownreasoning. Then SPAM I AM! closes with this:

"The courts have used some variation of this reasoning in upholding all manner of discrimination in immigration policy."

I assume he means his reasoning and not that of Mr. W. Cites would be appreciated for SPAM I AM!'s reasoning to better weigh how the courts, especially the Supreme Court, might analyze immigration issues under the Constitution. Since this is TrumpoCrazy time, perhaps SPAM I AM! might propose a bill that Congress might pass to accomplish the basic goal of protecting America from "bad" immigrants without in any sense violating the 1st A (and other provisions in the Constitution). Bear in mind the difficulty in attempting to determine a "good guy with a gun" from a "bad guy with a gun." I assume if SPAM I AM! were to take on this assignment, he would spell out details rather than "delegate" the Administrative State to work out the details. Who knows, in this TrumpoCrazy time such an effort by SPAM I AM! might revive the zombie Cruz Canadacy.
 

"The First Amendment is a restriction on what Congress can do, it says Congress shall make no law...etc., etc.,. "

The contents of the "etc., etc.," are actually pretty important here, and DePalma has nailed it.
 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment did and does more than prohibit Congress from establishing state religions. Giving special rights to Catholics in territory obtained after the French and Indian War, e.g., was a specific concern during the 1770s. So, providing a protective zone in Arizona Territory after the Mexican War where Catholicism was established? Don't think it would have been deemed okay. Part of not "nailing it."

Anyway, Mr. W.'s point is being missed. It is not a right to something but Congress' power to do something that is at issue here. Put aside that once the Congress carries out that illegitimate power, U.S. citizens tend to be affected. If Congress established a church in China, local Chinese would not have their rights violated. They have no right under our U.S. Constitution in that context. But, Congress would still be violating the 1A. It doesn't have the POWER.
 

("rights" here being constitutional rights; there might be some sort of treaty right or whatever at stake here)
 

Joe: Anyway, Mr. W.'s point is being missed. It is not a right to something but Congress' power to do something that is at issue here.

Let's try this once again...

According to 20th century courts at least, the prohibited power is to punish one religion and thus theoretically benefit all others.

Congress is not punishing a religion by denying its followers something to which they are not entitled.

Foreigners have no right to immigrate into the United States.
 

If Congress established a church in China, local Chinese would not have their rights violated. They have no right under our U.S. Constitution in that context. But, Congress would still be violating the 1A. It doesn't have the POWER.

At best I'd have to say this is unclear. The Insular Cases point one way, Reid points the other.
 

"So, providing a protective zone in Arizona Territory after the Mexican War where Catholicism was established? Don't think it would have been deemed okay."

Of course it wouldn't have. That would be establishing a religion. Congress could neither establish a church, nor interfere with state establishment of a church.

But it does neither by refusing to allow members of a particular religion to immigrate to the US.
 

Reid v Covert in case my cite was too ambiguous.
 

"The contents of the "etc., etc.," are actually pretty important here, and DePalma has nailed it."

Heh. As joe correctly points out, my point doesn't involve the 'etc., etc.,' but the 'make no law part,' and Bart's reply doesn't really involve it either.

And good examples Joe.
 

At best I'd have to say this is unclear. The Insular Cases point one way, Reid points the other.

I'm open to the idea that is "unclear" but how much does those cases inform the situation?

One involves the reach of the U.S. Constitution to U.S. territory. Current law there is that some limits are in place but how much is unclear. The latter involved when "the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad." My hypo involved non-citizens not on U.S. soil; not even necessarily soil it has even some moderate control over.

====

Appreciate Brett agrees with me that "cannot establish a state religion" does not "nail" what the First Amendment covers since it is underinclusive to its reach. Since there is no "state" in Arizona Territory.

Furthermore, foreigners don't have a 'right to immigrate,' but Congress can violate the 1A somehow by how they bar that immigration. For instance, if they said that you could immigrate if you pledge allegiance to the pope ... that would be a type of "establishment of religion." Even if the person has no right to immigrate at all.

The question there would be details.

===

According to 20th century courts at least, the prohibited power is to punish one religion and thus theoretically benefit all others.

That's part of what it does though the first clause of the sentence is both gratuitous and wrong. Punishing one religion specifically would have been a problem before that.

Congress is not punishing a religion by denying its followers something to which they are not entitled.

A "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is barred. This is a removal of a power, not merely denying a right to something. It doesn't say "free exercise of citizens." It is a general limit on all congressional powers, including any power over immigration.

Foreigners have no right to immigrate into the United States.

Congress has not right to pass a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "except as applied to those who want to immigrate" or even "aliens abroad"? not there.
 

I should be clear that I think Islam confronts Western liberalism and it's ideals of religious tolerance with a serious dilemma. Tolerating a religion which militantly and violently rejects tolerance is self-defeating. Western style liberalism co-evolved with religions that were rather more tolerant than Islam, and still hasn't adapted to the challenge.

Too many people resolve the dilemma by denying it's existence. This answer is sufficiently unworkable that eventually either liberalism finds a workable response to Islam, or it will be abandoned as suicidal.
 

"Appreciate Brett agrees with me that "cannot establish a state religion" does not "nail" what the First Amendment covers since it is underinclusive to its reach. Since there is no "state" in Arizona Territory."

Notice that I didn't say "cannot establish a state religion". The omission was deliberate.
 

(Congress has no power. Know Mark Field is a stickler about governments having "rights.")
 

"That would be establishing a religion."

"According to 20th century courts at least, the prohibited power is to punish one religion and thus theoretically benefit all others."

It's not just establishment in the strict sense Brett is talking about and not quite what Bart is getting at. Government must remain neutral between religions (and religion and non-religion). Larson v. Valente's language seems relevant:

"The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another"

"Free exercise thus can be guaranteed only when legislators -- and voters -- are required to accord to their own religions the very same treatment given to small, new, or unpopular denominations."

"Since Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), this Court has adhered to the principle, clearly manifested in the history and logic of the Establishment Clause, that no State can "pass laws which aid one religion" or that "prefer one religion over another." Id. at 330 U. S. 15. This principle of denominational neutrality has been restated on many occasions. In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), we said that "[t]he government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects." Id. at 343 U. S. 314. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (196), we stated unambiguously:

"The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion. . . . The State may not adopt programs or practices . . . which 'aid or oppose' any religion. . . . This prohibition is absolute." Id. at 393 U. S. 104, 393 U. S. 106, citing Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 374 U. S. 225 (1963).

Standing could be tricky, but the courts has shown a willingness for relaxed standing on Establishment cases. In the 10th Circuit case striking down Oklahoma's 'Sharia' law ban under Larson they granted standing to a gentleman in part because he argued the law's existence marked his religion as disfavored. More concretely, a modern day Brett with a foreign, Muslim bride they wished to have a visa granted to could likely sue (Kerry v. Din, see concurrence).


 

I noticed Brett said BP "nailed" something & in his discussion, BP provided a narrow definition of the reach of the amendment. So, I appreciate Brett agrees it is broader.
 

Brett, pretty much everything you say has been said before about Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc., etc., and found to be bull. We were told that 'papists' were fundamentally antithetical to our liberal values (after all, don't they agree to obey a hierarchical Church with a foreign potentate at its head?). Turns out US Catholics ended up a lot like US non-Catholics. The same is true for US muslims generally.
 

I think joe nails it here:

"Furthermore, foreigners don't have a 'right to immigrate,' but Congress can violate the 1A somehow by how they bar that immigration. For instance, if they said that you could immigrate if you pledge allegiance to the pope ... that would be a type of "establishment of religion." Even if the person has no right to immigrate at all."

Because it's so directly analogous to what we're talking about. Telling immigrants they must swear to a particular religion to be accepted is just like telling them they'll be denied if they swear to a particular religion.
 

Brett's selective focus on Islam as compared to a general concern for tolerance etc. is confused. For instance, Christianity in this country up until today includes believers who "reject tolerance" and this applies to various religions abroad as well. This includes use of violence, violence tragically not just something "they" do.

Likewise, historically, Islam was often more tolerant, at least to Jews and Christians, while Europeans went as far as expel non-Christians and burn witches etc. Some minority of believers here are at stake and as Mr. W. has noted, it furthers their cause to make their view of "Islam" the de facto established view of what "Islam" means.
 

It's not just religions which reject tolerance, either. Lots of political views do too. No doubt we should ban those as well.
 

Yeah, go ahead and pretend that Islam isn't really different. I'll just repeat what I said earlier:

Too many people resolve the dilemma by denying it's existence. This answer is sufficiently unworkable that eventually either liberalism finds a workable response to Islam, or it will be abandoned as suicidal.
 

Mark Field is correct.

I'll repeat myself. A general rule is appropriate here. The concern should be "a religion which militantly and violently rejects tolerance," and this includes SUBSETS of various religions. This has been repeatedly over our history the case, and continues to this day.

Let those who is without sin cast the first stone. Ignorance is not a positive form of bliss here including confused analysis of Islam over time. Aiding and abetting the intolerant branches of any group is ill-advised, but if you want to use (expand) federal and state power in that fashion, it's your call. Some have a different view of things.
 

Joe: Furthermore, foreigners don't have a 'right to immigrate,' but Congress can violate the 1A somehow by how they bar that immigration. For instance, if they said that you could immigrate if you pledge allegiance to the pope ... that would be a type of "establishment of religion." Even if the person has no right to immigrate at all.

Different situation.

Congress is creating a right to immigrate, but is conditioning that right on an affirmative act of speech by the immigrant. The creation of the right under American law may be enough to give the foreign citizen standing to assert the 1A. I would need to do some research on that issue.
 

Joe: Likewise, historically, Islam was often more tolerant, at least to Jews and Christians, while Europeans went as far as expel non-Christians and burn witches etc.

Both Christianity and Islam exercised the full range of tolerance and intolerance over their histories. Currently, Christianity is by far the most tolerant of the two faiths. Muslim nations across the world are persecuting, exiling and/or killing off their Christian and Jewish populations in a little reported holocaust.
 

"Joe: Likewise, historically, Islam was often more tolerant, at least to Jews and Christians, while Europeans went as far as expel non-Christians and burn witches etc."

If we had common border with the Middle Ages, this might be relevant. Fortunately, we have today's Christianity to deal with. Unfortunately, we face today's Islam, too.
 

Brett said this: "Western style liberalism co-evolved with religions that were rather more tolerant than Islam, and still hasn't adapted to the challenge."

Western style liberalism "evolved" while being quite intolerant even toward sects of Christianity. This is not something that stopped in the Middle Ages (even actual "witches" were targeted in the 17th Century, which isn't the "Middle Ages"). It continues to this day, with non-Muslims in this very country intolerant and open to violence.

Relevancy is sometimes missed by those who selectively quote or respond to snippets. A billion people are Muslim in the world. Like Christians and others, some subset of them use religion (though repeatedly, it actually turns out to be culture or something else) in intolerant ways. Misguided and at times tragically aiding and abetting them is bad.

And, Mr. W. is correct to argue it also very well can be against basic constitutional principles. OTOH, he is voting libertarian and is arguing with a certain brand of conservatives. (Like all faiths, they come in various forms) I can see the opening for debate there.


 

(A billion might be underselling it.)
 

Brett, you're correct that if we would just accept your premise that Islam is unworkable with liberalism then we'd have to conclude that...Islam is unworkable with liberalism.

I just don't see that Islam is somehow essentially incompatible. Millions of Muslims live and have lived in our country with, for the most part, little problem. And if you look abroad, the most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia (where over one in ten Muslims live), is rated as more free than the Philippines where your wife is from. Other majority Muslim nations such as Tunisia, Morocco, Malaysia, also rate rather highly. How can these things be if Islam is so incompatible with freedom and liberalism?
 

"Congress is creating a right to immigrate, but is conditioning that right on an affirmative act of speech by the immigrant. The creation of the right under American law may be enough to give the foreign citizen standing to assert the 1A."

This is where my analogy comes in.
 

The "evolving" of western style liberalism took place over a significant period of time. Compare this to Evangelicals in America who were early on in the campaign supportive of the Cruz Canadacy, perhaps based upon Cruz's dad having evolved into an Evangelist minister after his early years of supporting Castro in the days of Batista's Cuba. But these Evangelicals quickly evolved into Revengelicals to support the three times married, twice divorced, with children from three marriages, Donald J. Trump, who claims to be a Presbyterian, against Cruz. This evolving was amazing considering the type of life Trump led before becoming a candidate, and his non-Evangelical insulting as a candidate of just about everyone. Was this an example of TrumpoCrazy?
 

Correction, Philippines and Indonesia have the same score

Rankings from Freedom House:

Philippines: Partly Free, score 3 (1 best, 7 worst)
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/philippines
Indonesia: Partly Free, score 3
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/indonesia
Tunisia: Free, score 2
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/tunisia
Morocco: Partly Free, score 4.5
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/morocco
Malaysia: Partly free, score 4
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/malaysia


 

Flashback weekend moment ...

"Sunday, August 30, 2015

Could Donald Trump win the Republican presidential nomination

The quick and dirty answer to the question is yes."

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/08/could-donald-trump-win-republican.html

Nah.