It has been my experience that when lawyers are brought in for interpretation on any issue, a single sentence agreed on by you or me can be interpreted by a lawyer, with astounding ease, to mean just the opposite. Mr. McCarthy summarizes:
For now, there is no doubt that the executive order temporarily banning entry from specified Muslim-majority countries is both well within President Trump’s constitutional authority and consistent with statutory law.
The real threat to be targeted is sharia-supremacist ideology, which is inherently hostile to the Constitution. Were we to focus our vetting, unapologetically, on that ideology (also known as “radical” or “political” Islam), it would be unnecessary to implement a categorical ban on Muslims or immigrants from majority-Muslim countries. That is critical because non-Islamist Muslims who can demonstrate loyalty to our constitutional principles should not be barred from admission; while Islamists, on the other hand, are not found only in Muslim-majority countries – other things being equal, a sharia supremacist from the banlieues of Paris poses as much of a threat as a sharia supremacist from Raqqa.
Read more here.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Do Americans Support a Neocon Backed War in North Korea? - August 18, 2017
- Greetings from Faron at Le Hotel Bristol Paris - August 18, 2017
- The Media Has Ignored Antifa Violence for Months - August 17, 2017