First off, please, NO ANTAGONISTIC OR OFF TOPIC POSTS. I am sincerely trying to understand the supposed unconstitutionality of this whole thing. I'd like to ask people of both political persuasions to join in on this. I do not intend to talk mess or derail this thread as I am baffled at this whole thing. I like to think I am well educated and understand the constitution well, but for this to be such a big issue, I am missing something. Anyway, can anybody tell me exactly HOW it's unconstitutional? Seriously, without heresy, "opinions", and interpretations, I can't find any FACTS on how the ban is unconstitutional. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I looked it up, AGAIN, and I read an article from a sight that I usually don't care to read from, to be fair. http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...immigration-rules-are-unconstitutional-214722 Instead of facts, I found this... "However, a closer look at the executive order’s origins makes clear that it is a direct assault on the fundamental constitutional values of equal protection and religious freedom. How do we know this? Because Trump’s adviser, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, told us so." Both sides can see this is absurd, but I'll continue... "Giuliani said, “When [Trump] first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’” “It,” in this case, of course, is a ban on Muslims. Giuliani’s admission is a textbook case of drafting an order in a way that avoids overt declaration of animus against a religious or ethnic group, while retaining the motive and much of the effect." "led her to believe the order was legally suspect. On Tuesday, a senior Justice Department official confirmed Giuliani’s comments were part of her decision." Ok, so this is assuming intent, which wouldn't hold up in court, as even though he DID say "muslim ban", it can easily be declared that he misspoke. But to be more factual about that rebuttal, how can this be declared an outright ban on muslims, if he didn't ban ALL muslim countries? Let's continue... So I skimmed through this https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection Because it pertains to this "arguing that the order violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and that it also constituted an “establishment” of religion, thus violating one of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment." I will read it word for word when I can, but I don't see, so far, how this pertains to NON citizens, outside of the US, ESPECIALLY refugees. Section one of the fourteenth amendment states: (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." So a legal analysis from the same source states: "An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual that has legalstanding in the eyes of law. A legal entity has legalcapacity to enter into agreements or contracts, assume obligations, incur and pay debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be held responsible for its actions." Which, as I understand, EVEN IF it WAS a WHOLE muslim ban, and ALL muslim countries were banned, AND our constitution applied to non-citizens, the legal definition for "entity", is this; (source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html) "An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual that has legalstanding in the eyes of law. A legal entity has legalcapacity to enter into agreements or contracts, assume obligations, incur and pay debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be held responsible for its actions." Ok, let's move on... So I read this; "Strict scrutiny When a law is subject to strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the law is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. This means that the classification is no broader than absolutely necessary. The government interest must be compelling enough to warrant the classification. Strict scrutiny applies whenever a law targets a “suspect class” or burdens one’s right to exercise a “fundamental right.” A law discriminates on basis of a “suspect class,” if it classifies people on basis of race, national origin, or, in certain cases, non-U.S. citizenship (i.e. discriminates against documented aliens within the United States). Thus, a law would NOT be subject to strict scrutiny if it discriminates against undocumented aliens or aliens outside of the United States. A law burdens a “fundamental right” if it affects rights such as the freedom of speech, the right to marry, the right to travel, the right to vote, etc." So far, it's all coming together VERY clearly, that this ban is absolutely legal. So the politco article states "unconstitutional animus" a lot. So I looked it up, and it seems to further backup the legalities behind the ban. Source: http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_81/Pollvogt_November.pdf It covers CITIZENS. Here is a portion, of a case, that was argued: "The Court began its analysis with the emphatic claim that “[t]he Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation.”182 The Court then proceeded to determine the proper level of scrutiny to apply to the challenged legislation, analyzing whether the targeted group—the children of undocumented immigrants—should be considered a suspect class.183 The Court determined that they should not.184 This was because entry into the class was “the product of voluntary action”—illegally entering into the country.185 Further, it could not be argued that the distinguishing trait of the class was presumptively irrelevant to all conceivable legislative purposes.186 Immigration status is patently relevant to legitimate goals in immigration law and policy." The politico article goes on to talk about "classes" using gays as an example, but that are citizens, so we move on... Ok, let's break this paragraph down, based on the sources, precedent, cases, and CONSTITUTION. Blue text is my interjection. "Trump’s administration will tell you that Friday’s executive order is based not in animus towards Muslims—a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause, as all religious groups (citizens) are—but rather in the desire to protect constitutional values. After all, the order declares that “the United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution.” But the fact remains that this rationale only surfaced after Trump’s original campaign-trail proposal of a “total and complete shutdown” (which this ban is factually NOT as it does not ban ALL muslims, but those from the countries that are listed) of Muslims entering the U.S. was heavily criticized as a violation of constitutional law. The new language is a transparent act of deflection (opinion and assumption that holds no water due to factual evidence IE not all muslims are banned), as proven by Giuliani’s statement (heresy) on Fox News. At its core, the executive order discriminates against members of a particular religious group, however the administration chooses to spin it." The next paragraph states: "It doesn’t matter, by the way, whether the Muslims in question are citizens or noncitizens, green card holders, visa holders or refugees. The Equal Protection Clause explicitly prohibits “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court made this clear in Plyler v. Doe, when it protected the rights of non-citizen children in Texas, striking down a denial of school funds to the children of undocumented parents. This means that all foreign travelers on U.S. soil—those waiting at U.S. airports, for example—are protected." BAM!!! RIGHT THERE! "Within it's jurisdiction" So is the travel ban banning muslims from traveling from somewhere in the US, to somewhere in the US? Based on ALL of this, that would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. From OUTSIDE of the US, to INSIDE, is supported by all of our sources and legal precedent, INCLUDING what past presidents have done. Now we just get in to the "opinions" of the author and how the author makes excuses and attempts to twist things in the argument's favor. "In addition to violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, Trump’s order also appears to violate two other sources of religious protection, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and a statute passed by Congress called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Establishment Clause prohibits policies that favor one religion over another." WHAT?! Seriously?! So now, the author is trying to declare that the ban is based on "favoritism". I hate that I have to state this, but CHRISTIANS and JEWS aren't running around bombing, killing, stabbing, shooting up... It get's incredibly unreasonable and outright stupid as the comparisons are NOT the same. One is a religion from other countries and the other is a race that is not specified to be from outside of the country. "One final thing: There is a popular counterargument to all constitutional challenges to the executive order—one often cited by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway—that goes like this: Because the new policy does not target all Muslim-majority countries, it cannot be considered an act of discrimination against Muslims. Legally, this is a weak argument. A violation of the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and RFRA is still a violation, even if it affects only one person, let alone the large numbers affected by this policy. To see how absurd Conway’s logic is, consider this: If the president signs an executive order that discriminates against some African-Americans, it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t discriminate against all African-Americans—it’s still illegal." Sooooo yeaaaa... He could not discriminate agains African-AMERICANSSSSS! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well there are the sources and facts all broken down. Factually and legally, this ban IS constitutional. Could I be wrong? SURE! So state, FACTS that PROVE that this is illegal. PLEASE, let's keep this to a reasonable discussion. I have taken the time to go through all of this and break it down. Please do not comment unless you have a fact based argument that is productive. To those of us who are trying to have an honest discussion, please do not respond to irrelevant, or antagonistic comments, as to keep this thread on track and come to an honest conclusion. You all have a great weekend. Additionally, as to my opinion on the matter. I think non citizens who were going to school or working here, who left for a bit, SHOULD be allowed back in. I support this move but think it needs to be more organized and work out the many gray area variables. What annoys me, is that it's been done in the past, yet it's a HUUUUUUGE deal now. My opinion is irrelevant. I just want to clarify, to show that I am not a republican drone, just out to agree with anything Tump does. I am a fair American trying to understand this complex situation.