quote:

No, but they aren't the ones who they are arguing for standing in this situation. Although it would be hard to make the case in THIS situation, the establishment clause refers the government policy itself. A policy still can't favor one religion over the other regardless, which is why the EO bans certain countries instead.

Not really. As many have pointed out already, what happens if Trump or any other president wants to bomb some terrorist camp in Yemen? Is a district judge going to order a TRS on military action because it violates the the 1st amendment of the terrorists on foreign soil? You see where this is going, right?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35252 posts

Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:10 am to AUstar

quote:
Not really. As many have pointed out already, what happens if Trump or any other president wants to bomb some terrorist camp in Yemen? Is a district judge going to order a TRS on military action because it violates the the 1st amendment of the terrorists on foreign soil? You see where this is going, right?

Sure, which is why something that would blatantly unconstitutional domestically, would be debatable as it pertains to immigration. But immigration isn't completely foreign nor domestic policy related. It's an interesting overlap. The government still can't make policies that prohibit or promote a religion.

Again. I don't think that's the case here, but if he had explicitly banned a religion, or banned all but a single religion, I think he would have lost that case pretty easily.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board