Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which is more unconstitutional?
option 1 114 83.21%
option 2 23 16.79%
Voters: 137. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2015, 10:26 AM
 
3,569 posts, read 2,533,563 times
Reputation: 2290

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
once again you are wrong. the constitution only applies to people IN THE US. if they are not in the US, then they dont NOT get the constitutional protects. congress makes the rules as to who can come to the US and who cant. if they make a rule that says no muslims can get visas, then guess what, no muslims can get visas. its our immigration law. once they get here we cannot stop them from practicing their religion, but they have to get her first.
You are absolutely wrong. Congress cannot restrict immigration on the basis of religion. That is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Congress can restrict immigration on other bases that don't violate the Constitution.

What you are arguing is akin to saying "there is no right to have health insurance, so if the Affordable Care Act only applies to non-Christians, there is no restriction on religion, only on health care law." That is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2015, 10:43 AM
 
699 posts, read 613,815 times
Reputation: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
You are absolutely wrong. Congress cannot restrict immigration on the basis of religion.
Why not? We do it for Communists back in the Cold War. Both are a belief system and a choice. I'm interested where you scholars get your information
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
10,386 posts, read 8,053,195 times
Reputation: 27861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
You are absolutely wrong. Congress cannot restrict immigration on the basis of religion. That is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Since the 1st Amendment applies only to US citizens and those foreigners who are already residing in US territory, I can't see how restricting admission of foreigners NOT already residing in the US using whatever arbitrary criteria we choose could ever be a 1st Amendment violation. There is no right to immigrate to the US. Only US citizens and those foreigners holding a green card have a guaranteed right of admission to this country.

(Mind you, I think it would be absolutely stupid to pass a law banning Muslims from immigrating to the US. But I can't see how such a law would be unconstitutional. It would merely be unwise.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:00 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,973,354 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by miami_winter_breeze View Post
Why not? We do it for Communists back in the Cold War. Both are a belief system and a choice. I'm interested where you scholars get your information
Because religion is a protected belief system in the Constitution. Communism is a political belief system, not a religious belief system. Systematic discrimination by the US government of a religion would violate our Constitution's First Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:01 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,973,354 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
Since the 1st Amendment applies only to US citizens and those foreigners who are already residing in US territory, I can't see how restricting admission of foreigners NOT already residing in the US using whatever arbitrary criteria we choose could ever be a 1st Amendment violation. There is no right to immigrate to the US. Only US citizens and those foreigners holding a green card have a guaranteed right of admission to this country.

(Mind you, I think it would be absolutely stupid to pass a law banning Muslims from immigrating to the US. But I can't see how such a law would be unconstitutional. It would merely be unwise.)
Because laws passed by Congress that systematically discriminate against a specific religion would violate the First Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,693,046 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by miami_winter_breeze View Post
Please point to me where in the 2nd Amendment is it worded: reasonable infringement of a person's right to carry firearms. Please, I'm waiting.

And no, there always hasn't been laws. For example, felons couldn't purchase or carry guns since 1968, certainly not since the founding fathers enacted the 2nd amendment. I personally don't see this as an issue, a felon who has done his time and has been deemed safe enough to return to the general public can certainly buy a gun for all I care. If he's not safe to return to the public, keep him in prison.

However, there have certainly been laws from the beginning of the USA preventing people based on immutable traits, like race, from becoming citizens to immigrating here. The idea that everyone born in the USA is an American citizen is a concept that came into the constitution after the Civil War to finally get rid of slavery.
Hope you weren't holding your breath while waiting.

Here's your answer.

The founding fathers set up three branches of government and a document of principles to guide us. One of those branches of government is the Judicial. The top judicial court in the land is the SCOTUS. The sole purpose of the SCOTUS is to interpret the meaning of the constitution of the United States. All laws and regulations passed by the Legislative branch are subject to the final constitutional muster by the SCOTUS if called into question. All executive decisions made by the Executive are also reviewed by the SCOTUS if called into question. The rulings of the SCOTUS are final and absolute. They are the arbiters of what the Constitution means. In all cases, there are some who agree with the rulings and some who don't. That doesn't matter. The Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means whether you or anybody else like it or not. That's the way our founders set it up.

SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right inherent with all citizens, SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.
Just last week the SCOTUS upheld the right of an Illinois city to ban all assault style weapons from it's jurisdiction as a reasonable restriction.
Also there were reasonable restrictions on the 2nd before the ink was dry on the document. The right to convey or possess weapons was restricted when any property owner or business establishment declared it restricted.
Based on your posts, I'm sure you don't agree but that's the way it is and that's the way it's always been.
Suck it up.

Last edited by mohawkx; 12-09-2015 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,297 posts, read 20,809,159 times
Reputation: 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Because laws passed by Congress that systematically discriminate against a specific religion would violate the First Amendment.
The first amendment doesn't apply to non citizens living outside the USA. I don't see any way to tie 1A to immigration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,297 posts, read 20,809,159 times
Reputation: 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
You are absolutely wrong. Congress cannot restrict immigration on the basis of religion. That is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Says who?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:07 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,973,354 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
The first amendment doesn't apply to non citizens living outside the USA. I don't see any way to tie 1A to immigration.
The First Amendment applies to the government passing laws that establish a religion or that impede the freedom to practice a religion. A law discriminating against a religion, in any capacity, impedes the free practice of that religion, and is therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,934,611 times
Reputation: 24863
I wonder how many industrialists would go crazy if we extended an immigration ban to Hindus? Or Central American Catholics? Or Israeli Jews? Or Chinese communists, ex?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top