Home | About | Donate

We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause


#1

We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause

David Cole

According to the Supreme Court, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 US.


#2

Thank you for this post. Trump is like a bull in the china closet. If not for groups like the ACLU he may go unchallenged, unacceptable.
He must be challenged on each and every illegal and unconstitutional action he takes. He thinks he's a king (everything has to be gold) but his eye opener is coming.
He's going to be so unhinged about losing all the time his head may explode.
It's just NOT going to be like he thinks it is. He may do outrageous things but we the people can show up everywhere he goes, in protest, and protest everything he does.
If the Democrats don't get a spine they will go down with the crazy one and the Republican party. We aren't gonna take it anymore.


#3

"He's going to be so unhinged about losing all the time his head may explode."

One can only hope! However, while it might be satisfying to watch the replay on YouTube, I do not believe that the explosion would damage any of Drumpf's vital organs.


#4

As in the Leahy resolution,

Interesting that the order (as I read it on cnn.com) includes the same language. I've edited it slightly:

[T]he United States must ensure that those [vested with authority in] this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, [give authority to] those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not [give authority to] those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred....


#5

Court orders will mean nothing to Trump.

What was it Andrew Jackson said in response to a Supreme Court ruling? Something akin to "you and whose army", wasn't it?