AUDIO: Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” a statement that drew a lot of criticism from rival GOP candidates and others.
Presidential Candidate Governor Chris Christie was one of those criticizing the statement, calling it “ridiculous.”
Truly shameful that this man is not only running for president but is in the lead for the Republican nomination!
Clearly, he fancies himself a king and not a president because he apparently has not the slightest comprehension of what powers are (not) given to the president and he completely lacks regard for the First Amendment.
I hope his supporters wise up and stop this shenanigan soon. It’s becoming the blight of our nation. When the white supremacists are supporting your policies, you know something is wrong.
Geshmakalypse- What does his regard for the first amendment have anything to do with it? If anything he is exercising his first amendment right to say whatever he wants. Whether you agree or disagree, he’s not advocating violence against them so it’s not a misuse of free speech.
Until I hear some of the politicians propose a workable solution to the islamist terrorists then I can hear them. Not one politician offered an alternative solution all of them ar condeming trump. That’s easy to do but trump offered a SOLUTION! No one else has offered anything.
Huh?:
You’ve misunderstood my comment regarding his advocating a violation of the First Amendment. I’m not referring to his right to Free Speech, I’m talking about his policy benign a violation of the Establishment Clasue. The First Amendment protects more than simply Freedom of Speech.
His policy is patently contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (and more). If he (and his supporters) had any understanding of it, he would know that his policy is unconstitutional on its face.
Does anyone have a better idea? issl has said they will infiltrate the refugees that Obama wants to bring into this Country. What is wrong with stopping the refugees until we can vet them?
Trump is sounding more and more fascistic.
Would all those who are cheering Trump’s demagoguery, approve if it was turned upon them?
Are they fools ?
Originally, arguably Trump was somewhat of a breath of fresh air. He was willing to outright blast what all the others were tiptoeing and prancing around thereby pushing the acceptable boundaries of [false] political standards and debate.But now he just keeps going and going too far ,and is having the opposite effect!
Plus, Trump was getting some of the ‘disenfranchised’ to get involved ,
but now he’s is damaging the GOP
In the recent Canadian Election,in part due to his an increasingly anti moslem stances [cheered and egged on largely by jews ]Stephen Harper tanked !
Geshmakalypse, although your posting name is awesome, I disagree that this violates the establishment clause. I think throughout this debate about refugees and immigrants people have mixed up the rights of, and government obligations to, U.S. citizens vs. foreigners who wish to come here. It’s almost become a bad word to correctly label someone as “foreign”
There’s a huge difference between enforcing a religion on citizens and vetting immigrants based on religion because that religion is more likely to have adherents that constitute a threat.
I do agree however, that Trump is entirely unelectable in the general election and is holding down better general candidates like Rubio and Cruz.
Thanks for the compliment!
While non-citizens are not entitled to the all of the same protection as citizens, the Supreme Court has held that even enemy combatants (like those in Guantanamo Bay) have certain rights under the constitution. Because this policy invokes a religious test, it is subject so “strict scrutiny” by the Supreme Court. A governmental policy can only withstand strict scrutiny of it represents 1) a compelling interest and 2) is the least restrictive means to achieve that end. In the instant case, Trump’s policy cannot possibly pass strict scrutiny because it is about as overbroad as possible. Refusing entry to all non-resident Muslims in an attempt to prevent the handful who may in fact be harmful is incredibly far removed from the least restrictive means that it is almost certain to fail. The last case decided by the Supreme Court that can be used to argue in Trump’s favor would be Korematsu and it is possibly the most reviled decision in the history of the court! (Along with Plessy v. Ferguson and Lochner v. NY).