Turning the Constitution Into a Suicide Pact

In a terrifying essay, the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy explains what’s really at stake with Trump’s Executive Order on immigration. The one that recently was deep-sixed by the 4th Circuit, because of the president’s supposed animus against Muslim immigrants. Based not on the wording of the order, but on who ordered it.

The order is really - or should really be - about vetting potentially dangerous people who wish to immigrate to America. And that danger is intimately linked to sharia supremacists within Islam. Those who believe in a society organized around ancient Muslim sharia law, with it's explicit and often violent discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

In other words, to get at the root cause of jihadist islamic terrorism you have to legally discriminate against those Muslims who believe devoutly in sharia law, with all it's implications for any society organized around it's principles. And to be able to do that, you need a debate on freedom and sharia law, and how the two are in direct conflict. Sharia law is deadly for freedom, and thus for Western and American society in particular.

But even McCarthy has to recognize that such a debate would be almost impossible to hold in today's world. You would be shouted down, then banned from almost every campus in America, then threatened, and then attacked and perhaps murdered. In what would be a perfect justification for any such debate. But don't hold any hopes that any martyrdom would change progressive minds on their view that any criticism of sharia law is discriminatory against all Muslims.

And you have to combine such an outraged reaction with the Judicial Imperialism prevalent in many of America's court circuits. As McCarthy - a lawyer himself - tellingly points out, 4th district Judge Gregory in writing his lead opinion declared that there could be no judicial "abdication" when considering executive privilege - established by law and tradition in the American system of government - and immigration or national security. A royal judiciary perhaps?

With the courts increasingly redefining the constitution, and with inalienable rights being extended to aliens (that would be say a terrorist born in Libya like the Manchester bomber, and not a little green man from Alpha Corvi) the implications of the 4th Circuit's ruling on the administration's executive order are chilling. Sharia supremacists would have the right - an extension of 1st amendment rights to all and anybody anywhere on the planet - to be free from any perceived discrimination. Like vetting for people who would attack America or who would provide the context in sharia-worshiping communities for example, that fostered tomorrow's terrorists. Just like in Manchester, or Birmingham and elsewhere in the UK. You would be constitutionally prohibited from stopping them entering America, even as they believe in a society in which there are no constitutionally protected freedoms.

And that leads to the horrifying conclusion that Sharia Supremacists and Judicial Imperialism - as McCarthy puts it - risk turning the 1st amendment and thus the constitution into a suicide pact. Like what is happening in Europe right now.

Progressives will answer that the First Amendment applies to all and is a cornerstone of America's constitution. Yes, it does, and yes it is. But the executive office of the presidency also has the legal and constitutional right to protect American citizens - regardless of religion and race and creed - from those who would kill and maim and destroy. The First Amendment is not incompatible with a rigorous vetting program. Unless you are a 4th or a 9th circuit judge. Or quite a few other judges in other circuits, as is increasingly the case.

A rigorous vetting program is in fact a vital safeguard to ensure that the First Amendment and the rest of the constitution endures, and that the unique society it has given birth to remains free, strong and prosperous.

Posted by Keeley at May 31, 2017 1:31 PM
Comments
Comment #416869

Much of our federal judiciary has become politicized. We expect that from congress and the executive, but certainly not from our judges. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will correct these grave errors.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 1, 2017 4:39 PM
Comment #416870

Whistleblowers claimed the VA suicide line dropped an astounding 1.4 million calls last year from veterans in desperate need of help, the Washington Examiner reported. Obama could have cared less.

President Trump has announced a new hotline for Vets with VA problems. Here’s a number for a direct line to the White House for Veterans. It’s 855-948-2311.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 1, 2017 6:14 PM
Comment #416893

We shall see what the SCOTUS has to say. My guess is the lower court rulings will be overturned.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2017 6:48 AM
Comment #416898
A rigorous vetting program is in fact a vital safeguard to ensure that the First Amendment and the rest of the constitution endures, and that the unique society it has given birth to remains free, strong and prosperous.

I agree. Donald Trump promised to deliver permanent improvements to our vetting system 90 days after his inauguration. Over a month after that deadline, there’s been nothing but crickets on that front.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 2, 2017 10:22 AM
Comment #416950
Much of our federal judiciary has become politicized. We expect that from congress and the executive, but certainly not from our judges. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will correct these grave errors.

What do you expect when the countries leaders in Congress refused to do their job on the Garland nomination.

Keeley stop your whining, my god you think the answer is discrimination against millions of people because a handful are extremist, then use the word Christian where you use Muslim and then tell us you are alright with it.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 3, 2017 9:09 PM
Comment #416951

The phrase ‘leader’ when you should mean ‘representatives’ is part of the problem.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 3, 2017 9:29 PM
Comment #416955

A nerve wracking day in Portland. Recently a man verbally insulted a black woman and a woman wearing a hijab, shouting for them to get off the train and ‘get out of my country.’ When three good Samaritans intervened, he stabbed three, killing two of them. He claimed he was not a terrorists- he was a patriot.

Today there is a Trump Rally for Free Speech downtown. The killer frequented these rallies. The participants display swastikas and give Nazi salutes. They yell racist things. It is a horrible scene.

There will be several counter rallies. The antifa (antifascists) will be out in force, and the mood in Portland is ugly. People are being advised to stay away from downtown, despite this being a Sunday in June. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and the police will be able to keep the good people and the Trump Rally for Free Speech people apart.

Posted by: phx8 at June 4, 2017 10:52 AM
Comment #416957

NUT JOBS phx8, both sides have them. Your side has them and the right has them. You forget the riots after Trump was elected, and recently Kathy G. with her bloody head of Trump. So lets not just say DUMB S**T stuff is only on the right side your left wing side has it’s share of nut jobs to.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 4, 2017 12:34 PM
Comment #416958

It’s the only ammunition they have, Rich KAPitan. They can’t run on issues because they will tank badly in the next election if they do. They have to make their opponents look bad for them to even have a chance. That’s why, to them, conservatives are the devil reincarnate and liberals are as clean and pure as the wind driven snow.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2017 1:28 PM
Comment #416961
NUT JOBS phx8, both sides have them

Then why does right wing commentary frequently use the actions of a few antifa demonstrators to bash liberals?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 4, 2017 2:55 PM
Comment #416962

Warped, For the same reason left wing commentary uses the actions of a few to bash conservatives and Christians.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 4, 2017 3:20 PM
Comment #416967

No one, on the Left or on the Right should give these bad actors and terrorists any recognition whether at a political rally, college campus or violent demonstration in any American city. We, and the media, feed their anger and fuel their anarchy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 4, 2017 4:30 PM
Comment #417010

Neither antifa nor the the nationalist terrorists on the right will ever get any comfort from me. It’s regrettable that our President has been so slow to address the violent attacks that occurred recently in Oregon and Maryland.

On the topic of sacrificing lives in the defense of Constitutional Rights, I’d like to recognize the impressive impact of British arms control. If the perpetrators of last weekends horror had been able to get their hands on a gun, the body toll would have been far greater. There are likely dozens of people alive today on account of gun control.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 12:25 PM
Comment #417012

Warren, your assertion that gun control saved lives is in direct conflict with the facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2017 12:32 PM
Comment #417013

BTW, I love how everyone is giving Trump shit (rightfully) for using the tragedy to make a political case, but then in the same breathe start throwing out gun control arguments. The hypocrisy is pretty astounding. If you can’t even see that level of hypocrisy on display, there is little hope recognizing it at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2017 1:02 PM
Comment #417018

I haven’t given Trump shit for his (incorrect in my opinion) assertion that more liberal gun rights in Britain would have reduced the death toll.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 3:37 PM
Comment #417037
direct conflict with the facts.

If you are privy to the results of a controlled experiment whereby Saturday’s assailants reattempted their attack both with and without firearms as a test your alternative hypothesis, please do share it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 9:51 PM
Comment #417038

Warren, you know as well as I that in every instance where a gunman has opened fire and there has been zero people with guns to stop them, there have been double digit deaths. When there has been someone there to stop them, they’ve been single digits or stopped before any harm at all. Hundreds of thousands of violent crimes are stopped each year because of citizens with arms able to defend themselves.

The UK response? Run, Hide, Tell. That’s their motto that they tell people if they see any danger.

You may want to live like that, I don’t.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2017 10:53 PM
Comment #417039

Oh, and Keeley, your complete and total lack of understanding of Shria law is astounding in its breathe and scope both. Do us all a favor and stop writing about things you obviously know nothing about.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2017 10:58 PM
Comment #417042
every instance where a gunman has opened fire and there has been zero people with guns to stop them, there have been double digit deaths

This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not fewer people die when neither assailant nor victim possess firearms.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 11:57 PM
Comment #417045

The assailants used a van and some type of blade,Warped. When you see people jump out of a vehicle swinging a blade I’m pretty sure they are wanting to kill someone and if some of the law abiding citizens had guns double digit deaths would not have happened. Even saving one life would have been worth it.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 6, 2017 1:32 AM
Comment #417047

Warren, you don’t honestly think that there are no guns in the UK do you? That an attack with a gun could happen because there is gun control? I have never thought you that naive before…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 1:55 AM
Comment #417048

Lee Rigby and Jo Cox would disagree with you about the idea that gun control means no guns in the hands of dangerous people…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 1:57 AM
Comment #417052

Prison time would be appropriate here.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/06/who-is-reality-winner-accused-leaker-wanted-to-resist-trump.html

Posted by: dbs at June 6, 2017 10:28 AM
Comment #417056
you don’t honestly think that there are no guns in the UK do you? That an attack with a gun could happen because there is gun control? I have never thought you that naive before

This is a total straw man argument. I am only saying that Britain has far fewer guns floating around in its black market than the US does because of the laws over there. Consequently, the costs of obtaining one are much greater, forcing many (but not all) would be criminals to attempt their crimes without guns as last Saturday’s assailants did. The price of an AK-47 increases eightfold as it is smuggled from the USA towards Central America. I couldn’t find a price for AK-47s in Britain, but I believe it is comparable.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2017 11:16 AM
Comment #417057

So, Warped, a person or persons hell bent on killing could use anything that is handy such as Knife, axe, vehicle, homemade bomb. The cost may prevent gun use by the criminal, but won’t prevent him/her from improvising. So IMO a law abiding citizen could be the first line of defense if they have a carry permit.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 6, 2017 11:25 AM
Comment #417062

KAP,

That’s the whole point. Forcing the would-be criminal to use alternative weapons decreases the criminal’s lethality. As we saw in London on Saturday, three assailants armed with knives struggled to kill more than a few people. On the other hand, easy access to firearms has made homegrown terror attacks in this country far more deadly (witness San Bernardino, Pulse Nightclub and others).

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2017 1:51 PM
Comment #417064

Weren’t these guys that jumped out of the vehicle with the blade law abiding citizens up until that point? The problem seems to be that so many people are law abiding, such as the guy in Florida that used his gun to kill several people, up until they aren’t. I suggest we forget all about whether someone is law abiding and insist that all people go through a training class and carry a lethal weapon of a caliber dependent upon the individuals expertise.

I know I know… but couldn’t a law abiding citizen with a non lethal weapon…? Yes a taser or nonlethal bullet would work. Yes and it would be a good solution for those that wouldn’t carry a weapon based upon moral grounds, or just being a bad shot or under age.

Another problem I wonder about is what happens when the cops show up to a scene and the law abiding citizen is waving a gun, how do cops separate the good guys from the bad guys when all of them are white? It seems many police forces in this country aren’t trained well enough to discern the good from the bad when their safety is at stake.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2017 2:19 PM
Comment #417067

j2t2, it’s because in the US, those cops that are able to do that are fired for making the others look bad.

I’m not joking.

https://www.americangrit.com/2016/09/15/police-officer-fired-not-shooting-suspect/

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 2:38 PM
Comment #417068

Warped, killing no matter what instrument you use is bad. What difference does it make if the killer used a vehicle or bomb or knife, the outcome is the same people are dead without the use of a gun. Guns are not the problem if the user is legally entitled to use. A criminal will get whatever he/she needs to fulfill his/her agenda.


Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 6, 2017 3:05 PM
Comment #417070

Warren insists on concentrating on what a wonderful, life-saving thing it is for a nation to prevent (With a few exceptions) its populace from owning and carrying firearms.

His position is that terrorists would kill more if armed with guns. My position is that terrorists would be deterred if they faced an armed citizenry.

I find it strange that my Pals on the Left believe in “Birth Control” but not in “Terrorists Control”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 6, 2017 3:44 PM
Comment #417079

June 6, 1944 became known as D-Day. It is difficult for me to imagine the planning that went into that military effort by the Allies. Could such a secret military operation be accomplished today and kept hidden from the media? I doubt it.

Who can comprehend the skill, bravery, courage, and determination of the mostly age 21, and younger, men from all across America who fought and died that day…and for many days thereafter.

I salute each and every one who placed country above life and defeated the worst scourge the world had ever known.

I fly my American flag proudly every single day to honor all the men and women who have served in our armed forces and for the freedom given by our Founders and maintained by willing sacrifice when called upon.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 6, 2017 7:16 PM
Post a comment