Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny that the question w.as about the "spirit" of the Constitution. I would say that discriminating based on religion more violates the spirit of the constitution.
The founding fathers who drafted the constitution, ratified the constitution and understand the 'spirit' better than anyone alive today - allowed only white europeans of christian faith to become american citizens. If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. Why do you think it's against the "spirt of the constitution"?
The link is a very old case, and the specific language cited is from a still older case, Bridges v. Wixon,326 U.S. 135 (1945). The cited language is dicta from a concurrence, meaning it is non-precedent because it does not deal with the issues of that case (which was not about a 1st immigration--i.e., exclusion, but rather about deportation of a resident alien; it also did not deal with the free exercise of religion). Also, the deportation at issue in Bridges was reversed for violating an immigrant's 5th Amendment right of Due Process. It was a case where an immigrant was accused of Communist affiliation due to affiliation with a trade union in San Francisco. The fundamental issue was the admission of prejudicial, ex parte evidence in the immigration proceedings. The case did not reach other constitutional issues (like the 1st Amendment's protection of speech).
I don't believe that the United States has ever tried to restrict immigration on the basis of religion, but if the Constitution supports liberty, then it would not respect such a restriction.
In a more recent case, Justice Douglas articulated the issue:
"Thought control is not within the competence of any branch of government. Those who live here may need exposure to the ideas of people of many faiths and many creeds to further their education. We should construe the Act generously by that First Amendment standard, saying that once the State Department has concluded that our foreign relations permit or require the admission of a foreign traveler, the Attorney General is left only problems of national security, importation of heroin, or other like matters within his competence."
And Justice Marshall:
"Its protection is "a fundamental principle of the American government." Whitney v. California, supra, at 375. The First Amendment means that Government has no power to thwart the process of free discussion, to "abridge" the freedoms necessary to make that process work."
"A. Today's majority apparently holds that Mandel may be excluded and Americans' First Amendment rights restricted because the Attorney General has given a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for refusing to waive Mandel's visa ineligibility. I do not understand the source of this unusual standard. Merely "legitimate" governmental interests cannot override constitutional rights. Moreover, the majority demands only "facial" legitimacy and good faith, by which it means that this Court will never "look behind" any reason the Attorney General gives. No citation is given for this kind of unprecedented deference to the Executive, nor can I imagine (nor am I told) the slightest justification for such a rule. 3
Even the briefest peek behind the Attorney General's reason for refusing a waiver in this case would reveal that it is a sham. The Attorney General informed appellees' counsel that the waiver was refused because Mandel's activities on a previous American visit "went far beyond the stated purposes of his trip . . . and represented a flagrant abuse of the opportunities afforded him to express his views in this country." App. 68. But, as the Department of State had already conceded to appellees' counsel, Dr. Mandel "was apparently not informed that [his previous] visa was issued only after obtaining a waiver of ineligibility and therefore [Mandel] may not have been aware of the conditions and limitations attached to the [previous] visa issuance." App. 22. There is no basis in the present record for concluding that Mandel's behavior on his previous visit was a "flagrant abuse" -- or even willful or knowing departure -- from visa restrictions. For good reason, the Government in this litigation has never relied on the Attorney General's reason to justify Mandel's exclusion. In these circumstances, the Attorney General's reason cannot possibly support a decision for the Government in this case. But without even remanding for a factual hearing to see if there is any support for the Attorney General's determination, the majority declares that his reason is sufficient to override appellees' First Amendment interests."
"D. The heart of appellants' position in this case, and the basis for their distinguishing Lamont, is that the Government's power is distinctively broad and unreviewable because "the regulation in question is directed at the admission of aliens." Brief for Appellants 33. Thus, in the appellants' view, this case is no different from a long line of cases holding that the power to exclude aliens is left exclusively to the "political" branches of Government, Congress, and the Executive.
These cases are not the strongest precedents in the United States Reports, and the majority's baroque approach reveals its reluctance to rely on them completely. They include such milestones as The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), and Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), in which this Court upheld the Government's power to exclude and expel Chinese aliens from our midst."
There is no right to the protections of the Affordable Care Act, so why would it be unconstitutional if that Act applied only to non-Christians?
The law of immigration is a creation of Congress. No conception of liberty could pretend that Congress' creation is utterly limitless. No judge should uphold an immigration restriction on the basis of religion.
Says anyone who believes the words "Congress shall make no law" mean what they say. Says anyone who believes that human beings have natural rights, including the right to practice a religion.
Just disregard this entire post since they have no idea what the clause, Congress shall make no law.. even means. I'm so tired of idiots thinking they know what they are talking about and actually argue over and over about how they are right.
Says anyone who believes that human beings have natural rights, including the right to practice a religion.
Part of "natural rights" is to allow access into your house to whomever you choose. If you don't want a muslim in your house, it's part of your "natural right" to deny him. He still has free access to practice his religion, just not in your house. It can be his house.
Part of "natural rights" is to allow access into your house to whomever you choose. If you don't want a muslim in your house, it's part of your "natural right" to deny him. He still has free access to practice his religion, just not in your house. It can be his house.
It's so damn funny to listen to Lefties talk about how it is an inherent right to freely practice whatever religion you want, but when you point out you aren't allowed to do those things in some countries, they say, "Their country their rules". They are a wacky, mentally ill bunch.
It's so damn funny to listen to Lefties talk about how it is an inherent right to freely practice whatever religion you want, but when you point out you aren't allowed to do those things in some countries, they say, "Their country their rules". They are a wacky, mentally ill bunch.
What's scary is they think the Bill of Rights apply to people trying to emigrate to this country. So someone saying "death to america" is allowed to emigrate here on freedom of speech grounds?
There is no right to the protections of the Affordable Care Act, so why would it be unconstitutional if that Act applied only to non-Christians?
The law of immigration is a creation of Congress. No conception of liberty could pretend that Congress' creation is utterly limitless. No judge should uphold an immigration restriction on the basis of religion.
Says anyone who believes the words "Congress shall make no law" mean what they say. Says anyone who believes that human beings have natural rights, including the right to practice a religion.
comparing immigration law to the ACA is a non starter. first off it is unconstitutional for the government to require the purchase of anything, despite the supreme court ruling to the contrary.
as for congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise there of, that only applies to people already living here, not to people that want to come here. if they are not here yet, then constitutional protections DO NOT APPLY TO THEM.
Since you don't know what you're talking about, I'll make an example even you can understand.
Freedom of Speech, central piece of the first amendment. If a person wanting to immigrate to this country says things against the USA, he will not be allowed into this country. This is the article I quoted for you, that you said is 'irrelevant.' It is not infringing on free speech, to use someone's speech against them when they are trying to immigrate here.
Very simple actually:
Freedom of Religion (like Speech and other freedoms) only applies to citizens and residents of the USA. Not people wanting to immigrate here.
Don't be sorry you're wrong.
You're the one who is wrong. Your myopic reading of the law, combined with your fear of Islam, has colored your perspective.
Freedom of Religion applies to Americans. When the American government passes a law discriminating against a religion, that affects us all. And therefore, it is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
