Donald Trump

"Have You Even Read the United States Constitution?" Father of a Fallen Muslim Soldier Challenges Trump at the DNC

This was the powerful highlight of the Democratic National Convention.

|

The most powerful speech at tonight's Democratic National Convention tonight came from Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq.

Standing by his wife, Khan declared that he was proud to be on stage "as patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country." And he challenged Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has proposed a ban on Muslim immigration, declaring that if Trump had his way, his son would never have "been in America."

"Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims," Khan said. "He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you, 'Have you even read the United States Constitution?'" And then held up a copy of the Constitution.

Watch the whole speech below.

Advertisement

NEXT: LIVE from the DNC in Philadelphia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sorry, but Muslims do quite enough on their own to sully the character of the rest. Too bad folks like are far more pissed off at Trump than at the others in Islam who routinely kill in the name of the religion.

    1. The Western Secular Caliphate and Radical Bombisists kill more muslims than can be dreampt of in the Islamist theosophies.

      1. it does not help his lack of self-awareness. I’m sure there are some very nice Muslims out there, but no society has ever been made better by a mass influx of them. Your post proves that.

        1. You don’t have to let them in, but you must stop bombing them – that’s what radicalizes them in the first place. Also what else radicalizes them? FBI ‘stings’ that try to lure them into terrorist plots (e.g. Mateen) and making someone wear an ankle bracelet for questioning laicite (e.g. Normandy) and making them take a ‘de-radicalization’ program that tells them that ISIS will make them commit crimes (e.g. Hanover). ISIS is a creation of the US government with the support of other countries including Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It’s a joke to blame it on ‘religion’. Though, it is really caused by extremist secularism.

          1. No, bombing does not radicalize them. If it did, then they must be bombing each other to rationalize your previous post of Muslims killing more Muslims than anyone else. I’m fine with an end to bombing them; let them kill each other.

            ISIS is an excuse for 8th century barbarians to act like 8th century barbarians. They have been doing this since the Barbary days, at least.

            1. Yes they radicalize each other, and yes they are more dangerous to each other than to us. But thank you for agreeing that we should stop bombing. That is huge progress. What should we do? Support any factions that support free speech and religion based on what they teach their children and otherwise let them blow each other up if that’s what they want to do. I’m tired of the “We must bomb them or they will bomb each other! And sell their children into international sex trafficking rings!” (Which is what Klobuchar said last night – despicable.)

              1. Plenty of people here oppose the bombing. Are you new to this site? Again, I do not care if they bomb each other. When they stray from their corner of the world and start bombing others, then a wholly out-sized response is warranted.

                Islam and Western culture do not mix, a truth that is confirmed time and again, the outlier example in this article notwithstanding.

              2. my roomate’s ex-wife makes $64 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for six months but last month her payment was $17848 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to the website >>>>>>>. Wisejs.com

          2. Why don’t bombs radicalize anyone else like Vietnam, or Germany, or Korea. It’s almost like its something else… If only there was some common link.

            1. Hey, bombings did work to end suicidal Japanese fanatics.

          3. Have You Even Read the Koran?

            That’s what really seems to radicalize them.

            1. Have you ever read the comments sections here? We already have our own radicals.

              1. Leave Sevo out of this.

              2. Preet Bharara’s imaginings aside, I don’t recall a rash of international terrorism carried out by Reason readers, their shouts of “I am John Galt!” echoing in the bloody aftermath of their attacks.

                1. Wait. I thought their cry was “It’s the only way to be sure!”

          4. Whut about bombing the only non-islamofascist dictatorship in the Ottoman Empire? It wasn’t until George Holy War Bush did tht that the Saracens began demolishing the World Trade Center.

      2. Islam is toothless right now only because it lost its empire. Under Islam, discrimination, intolerance, and oppression are an intrinsic part of government.

        1. Yea, but the Crusades !!!1!1

      3. dajjal dajjal dajjal ….. So much emotion my son so little critical thinking

    2. It’s just a few bad apples.

    3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once
      I tried it out. This is what I do… GO THIS WEBSTE… http://www.trends88.com

    4. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $16000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… Read More This Website… http://www.Trends88.com

  2. Suderman praising DNC speeches, what a surprise.

    And the Democrats support the Iraq war and teh Troopz when convenient. What a surprise.

    1. Shhh! Don’t remind them Chocolate Nixon murdered thousands of them with Drone Strikes after supposedly promising in 2008 to stop the wars. Just keep repeating the oft-touted mantra that the Democrats are the Anti-War Party[TM]!

    2. Apparently Khizr Khan hasn’t read the constitution either, unless he can show me the part where the government is prohibited from placing certain restrictions on who is allowed entry into the country.

  3. Where’s Richman when you need him?

  4. I have. Must have missed the part where Congress can’t control immigration any way they please.

    Must have missed an entire article about why we must spend tax revenue to import “refugees”.

    1. It is kind of pathetic that Dems get bent out of shape about Trump’s Muslim immigration stance while their current POTUS admin has deported more immigrants than any admin in the history of the country.

  5. That’s rich.

    1. Given where he was, I’m guessing no show of hands.

  6. This country will go straight down the shitter without more Muslims.

    1. I noticed in a sidebar that Angelina Jolie had apparently converted to Islam. It makes me wonder what prompts anyone in the U.S. to convert to it. It used to be if any progressive was going to convert to another religion, it would be Buddhism. I guess Islam is the fashion nowadays.

    2. Izzis the original Wrath of Khan with William Shatner or some wannabee remake?

  7. judges, even his own party leadership

    ‘Have you even read the United States Constitution?

    Incredible hypocrisy that Reason doesn’t call out from the Dems. What a surprise.

    1. It’s the Declaration of Independence that’s real straight about overthrowing. In Mencken’s translation: That any government that don’t give a man them rights ain’t worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter. That whenever any government don’t do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum’s rush and put in one that will take care of their interests.
      So there.

  8. Reason’s been pretty softball on the DNC. Who woulda thunk?

    1. Suderman’s pretty obviously in the tank for Hillary. It’s kind of embarrassing.

      I can respect the one’s who are in the tank for Johnson — it’s a libertarian magazine, after all, but they’re far outnumbered by the ones who’ve decided the criminal, authoritarian, crony socialist is the way to go.

      1. This post is the kind of derpy thing Weigel would do.

        Remember this shit the next time Reason has another beg-a-thon.

      2. The only two palatable outcomes of the election are:
        1) Johnson inexplicably wins, and suprises the country, libertarians included, by not sucking.
        2) Trump wins, but his lead is so obvious that Congress and Pres Obama pass several bills prior to his taking office that substantially rein in the power of the President to fuck things up.

        There are no pro-Hillary libertarians.

    2. The Dems are leading 2 to 1 among folks who know enough math to bet their own money. Nothing the LP can say will affect the smug New Soviet. God’s Own Prohibitionists, in their desperation, actually injected the word “libertarians” into their latest Mein Kampf platform. Have you ever READ the Libertarian or GOP platform?
      By helping defeat the christianofascists the LP adds clout to our spoiler votes and gets some of the fairer sex to regard us with less hostility.

  9. ‘Have you even read the United States Constitution?'”

    His speech was in front of a crowd full of people who support restrictions on speech, self-defense, and freedom of religion…. yet they all cheer, imagining someone else is supposed to be listening.

    1. And Suderman and the rest of Reason don’t notice. Such yokels we are.

      1. Oh, they notice. That just makes it worse.

      2. Worst case Trump victory consequence: Suderman loses his job
        Best case Trump victory consequence: Suderman inexplicably leaps from military helicopter.

    2. Not to mention that I don’t really get his argument. Discrimination in immigration is constitutional, at least according to both American history and the Supreme Court.

      Is his argument that Trump saying mean things about Muslims is unconstitutional? Unless he’s saying that he’ll take their citizenship away, it’s not a Fourteenth Amendment violation.

      Did Mr. Khan read it?

      1. He’s saying that Trump should be punished for criticizing Islam, because doing so is hate speech not free speech.

        1. “Hate speech” isn’t in the Constitution.

          Perhaps he’s asking if Trump had read the decillions of pages of case law.

          1. It’s in the Shadow Constitution, the one made of fairy tales and moonbeams.

      2. It says liberty and equal protection under the law. There are no other words.

        1. Don’t lie! That’s not what the U.S. Sharia Constitution says!

          Oh, you meant the real U.S. Constitution. Dude, that’s, like, more than a hundred years old!

        2. Get back to me when the U.S. constitution is broadly applied to every person on the planet. Wait, it’s never been that way, and it’s impossible to do so without violating the sovereignty of every other country on this planet.

  10. If he’s displeased with how Muslims are seen, I would suggest he direct his anger at the people who committing violence in the name of his religion. If it continues to escalate, the nasty backlash is inevitable.

    1. Khzir Khan is deeply concerned about the potential backlash from tomorrow’s bombing.

  11. Reason is very found of the Whig view of history and Locke but the original Whigs lead by Shaftesbury, who was an employer of Locke, supported the Test Acts and used anti-Catholic conspiracy theories to execute innocent people.

  12. It’s always gratifying to see people uphold the values in the Constitution. Ironic that the dems actually did this more than the RNC.

    1. What values did the dems hold up? Taking away guns, or taking people’s money?

      1. Troll, dude.

      2. Don’t forget the book/movie banning.

        1. “Don’t forget the book/movie banning.”

          Yes, Hillary Clinton has pledged to get a Constitutional amendment to ensure know one ever again releases a movie critical of her during a campaign. She’s a Champion of the Constitution!

      3. Taking people’s money. The People’s Democratic Party of William Jennings Bryan plumped for the communist manifesto plank 2 income tax in 1909. Today the CPUSA endorses them instead of pretending to run its own. But when come November Hillary gamblers do collect that $100 for every $200 they have in the game (which gets returned) there will be WAY fewer disgusting GO Pee sockpuppets in here whining about how the Dems “aren’t really” altruists.

  13. you know every politician within shouting distance was immediately telling their staff to “get me a copy of this constitution thing, in case i get asked if i’ve read it!”

    1. Right? The irony of making that statement with that crowd…

    2. +10

  14. Glad to see that Suderman is still on whatever replaced Journolist.

  15. I don’t get it. Is Khan referring to Obama as Trump? Those extra-constitutional drone assassinations weren’t ordered by that flap of blonde hair.

  16. Some weaksauce DNC coverage tonight.

  17. Major Nidal Hasan has killed more of the “enemy” than all other Muslim US soldiers combined.

  18. How did he slip a copy of the Constitution into the DNC? The Secret Service needs to step it up; next time it could be a bomb.

  19. When Suderman was born, the doctor turned around and slapped his mother.

  20. Which of Zden?k Fierlinger and Wilhelm Kulz resemble Gillespie or Welch more..

  21. The DNC, and Muslims who support the DNC can Fuck Off.

  22. So the guy is saying his son would be alive today if Trump had his way?

    1. Ironically, it’s possible that if Trump had actually succeeded in withdrawing US armed forces from fighting other countries’ wars for them, this guy’s son might actually be alive in that hypothetical reality.

      And yet, under the unearned-Peace Prize President, his son is dead, and he supports more-of-the-same Hillary.

  23. The only tool Islam seems to have is the appeal to authority. Therefore, I predict it will continue to be violent forever. Some have dreamed of an Islamic reformation similar to the Christian reformation, in which Islam will repudiate its violence. The only way this was possible for Christianity was that people became literate and read the actual (or if you’re cynical about it, reported,) words of Jesus. Given what we have seen from Islam, I submit that what we witness today IS the Islamic reformation in action. Broadly literate, Muslims read the Koran and apply its teachings correctly on its own terms.

    1. Islam is having its Reformation right now, that’s the problem.

  24. I just love how Mrs. Khan was such an equal partner in Mr. Khan’s propaganda speech and not just standing silently, three feet behind him, in a burka matching his tie.

    Oh, wait …

    1. Muslims are exempt from equality, just like blacks are exempt from being perpetrators of crime. You know, because of the Crusades and slavery, respectively.

    2. That’s not a burqa, it’s a hijab.

      Not that the distinction detracts from your point.

      1. In case you care,

        burqa = face and eyes covered
        niqab = eyes visible
        hijab = face visible

        1. acid-in-the-face or stoned-to-death = hair, face, eyes all uncovered

  25. Superman belongs on HuffPost.

    1. Stupid auto correct. It should have been Suderman, not Superman.

    2. I understand the need to call Trump out on his bullshit, but these assholes want to rewrite the first and second amendments.

      1. At this point, Trump has been sufficiently called out. How about we spill some ink on the Democratic National socialists?

      2. So? The GOP wants the 14th to begin with All ova fertilized… and to bring back the 18th for alcohol and reword the 21st to cover hemp.
        Has anyone read the GO Pee plank on the IRS? It’s a nod to our great great great great grandchildren, who will thank them for making it possible to repeal the 16th a couple of centuries from now.
        The GO Pee is really dirtying its drawers in desperation over women voters doing them like they did when Herbert Hoover tried his best lines.

    3. And give up his sweet gig on vox?

  26. How long till Suderman makes the libertarian case for war with Russia?

    1. Well, the Russian outlawed the Dewey Decimal System, and they ban important works of literature and…wait, what? Oh libertarian case.

      Never mind.

  27. Suderman’s proudest moment came when he was once mistaken for a man.

  28. I can’t wait for the forthcoming articles criticizing the naked totalitarianism on plain display at the DNA. Gosh, that Constitution line would be a perfect irony to play off, or something.

    Oh wait, a glowing praise article? Where’s my fainting chair?

  29. “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.”

    —-Donald Trump, Nomination Acceptance Speech

    That statement seems both reasonable and constitutional to me.

    I am not familiar with every statement Trump has made on the subject, but the statement quoted above from his acceptance speech wasn’t calling for a ban against Muslims entering the country.

    I am fundamentally opposed to the government discriminating against people because of their religion. However, suspending immigration from places like Iraq, Libya, and Syria–specifically because those areas are rife with anti-American ISIS terrorists–simply is not discriminating against people because of their religion.

    It’s discriminating against people from terrorist areas for being from areas that are rife with anti-American terrorists.

    1. Trump is terrible at phrasing anything to be other than crude, simplistic, and offensive despite what he might actually mean if he gave it half a thought. He’s given so much material to the Democrats for anti-Trump commercials, they are probably incapacitated from overload.

  30. Well done. But I would think holding up a copy of the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention would be like holding up a crucifix at a vampire convention.

    1. More like a heretic showing up at a conclave of the Spanish Inquisition. The Dems aren’t repelled by the Constitution; rather they believe in what they call a “living Constitution” and what I call a “screaming Constitution” – one where its wording is tortured until it screams and confessess to whatever politically correct orthodoxy the inquisitors demand.

      1. Even the Constitution doesn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.

  31. I’m trying to imagine why NOT limiting immigration from areas that are rife with anti-American terrorists makes sense from a security standpoint, and I’m drawing a blank.

    This seems like another one of those situations where Democrats are accusing Trump of being awful for proposing what Obama and Hillary have already been doing for years. We all know that Barack Obama has killed hundreds of innocent children with drone strikes–and he keeps ordering them. In a million years, Hillary Clinton would never promise to bomb ISIS targets only when there is no chance of innocent family members being killed.

    . . . but when Trump says that he wouldn’t let ISIS family members get in the way of his bombing campaign, that’s reported as if it’s some wild-eyed, novel approach?

    Same thing here.

    If Obama and Hillary didn’t do anything extra to check that the immigrants we’ve been letting in from Iraq, Libya, and Syria aren’t affiliated with ISIS, then they’re the most incompetent leaders in the world. The fact is that the Obama Administration has been putting such refugees through a special vetting process–and no one’s calling them out for being anti-Muslim because of that.

    Trump is basically saying he wants to do the same thing; he’s just saying that the current vetting process is ineffective and so immigration from those countries should be suspended until the vetting process is more effective at keeping the terrorists out. That simply is not bigoted.

    1. It’s a combination of TDS and the left being completely and totally amoral.

  32. You know what really is bigoted and anti-Muslim?

    Leveraging the wild-eyed Muslim stereotype to blame Muslims for overreacting to a YouTube video just to deflect blame away from themselves and their own incompetence on Benghazi–ahead of election day.

    Yeah, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both hyped bigotry against Muslims to hide their own poor decisions in the Benghazi affair–and that’s indefensible. They should be ashamed of themselves.

  33. Does he mean the part about the Congress declares war?

  34. I’m sorry but this is where my opinion deviates from Reason and a lot of libertarians. Islam has a problem. If you study your history and see the borders of Islam you can see it is steeped in conquest and violence. From the Barbary pirates to ISIS Islam has a bloody track record. The west isn’t innocent and if America hadn’t involved itself in the Middle East then ISIS probably wouldn’t exist – our foreign policy is largely to blame and Europe could do way more to assimilate their Muslim population, especially economically speaking. However, these issues should not give a migrant an excuse to rape and pillage his way across Europe. When the Irish, Italians etc came to America they didn’t murder and rape en masse, they knew better. This is where Reason needs to use common sense in immigration, I’m for open borders but with the problems that Europe is having regarding its Islamic migrants one has to question the wisdom behind it. Being libertarian also requires one to be willing to resist a movement that abhors personal liberty. Should we roll over and and be weak?

      1. Krauthammer is correct. There is simply no excuse for this type of behaviour, the left and it’s probably suffice to say, most libertarians propogate this belief that bowing down before the altar of “multiculturalism” while our wives and daughters are being sacrificed on it (raped and molested) in the name of “cultural enrichment”. Islam did not have an enlightment period nor a Renaissance or a tradition based on ancient Roman Greco civilization. It is based on a medieval warlord philosophy that is simply incompatible with western civilizations. Islam does not have a New Testament. Judaism has Moses, David and Abraham – Christianity has Christ and Peter and Paul, admirable men whose philosophy was peace – Islam has Mohammed who married a 9 year old and enslaved and pillaged his way across Arabia. The fanatics in all three Abrahamic religions emulate their heroes – The Muslims emulate Mohammed’s example, therefore we have these issues. I’m not saying any other religion doesn’t or didn’t have issues, they do, but Islam is a special case.

    1. “Being libertarian also requires one to be willing to resist a movement that abhors personal liberty”

      No it does’t. If others are committing genocide, human rights violations and enforcing tyranny, you’re supposed to sit your as down and watch, because war is baddest thing to ever be bad. You can’t violate the NAP by trying to stop this barbarism, can you?

      1. It is not violating the NAP to defend yourself. It’s the non-aggression principle, not the pacifist principle.

        The problem is, if somebody is not actually trying to kill you, then you aren’t defending yourself if you take up arms against him.

        That having been said, fights between states or quasi-state entities like terrorist organizations aren’t really covered by an individualist/anarchist interpretation of the NAP.

        1. Oh? So where is your thesis explaining all this?

      2. I’m not advocating interventionism, in fact because of intervening in the Middle East is precisely a lot of the problem. What I’m saying is primarily questioning the wisdom of importing waves of Islamic migrants en masse who simply have no plans on assimilation, when their numbers are in the majority they enact Islamic law, show me one Islamic majority country/ system in the world that respects minority religions and secular philosophies within their borders. Saudi Arabia? Nope, Pakistan? Nope, Indonesia? Nope. Turkey used to be somewhat tolerate, not anymore.

        1. I agree.

          Really, though, it doesn’t matter what the religion is, it’s the fact that the group of people being imported are not interested in respecting our individual liberties.

          Note that I am not necessarily asking for them to be libertarian–I’m setting the bar very low and saying they merely need to respect our individual liberties.

          It would be the same as importing a huge batch of progressive/leftist Democrats or social conservative Republicans–they love to shove their beliefs down others’ throats, thus they are no more welcome than Islamists.

          But if any group of immigrants can meet the very low bar of respecting other’s individual liberties, I don’t particularly care whether they completely or even mostly assimilate into the culture.

        2. “Nope” on Indonesia? You sure about that? Throwing them in with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

          To quote Bill Lumbergh, “I’m gonna have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.”

  35. powerful speech Democratic National Convention tonight came from Khizr Khan
    https://bollywoodsnaps.wordpress.com

  36. JFC, Suderman, I don’t like Trump either but must you breathlessly parrot every Dem line of attack no matter how specious?

    1. You can say that again.

  37. JFC, Suderman, I don’t like Trump either but must you breathlessly parrot every Dem line of attack no matter how specious?

  38. Does anyone who runs for office even pay any credence to the Constitution anyway? //rhetorical

    1. Nope. But then again, has any politician in US history?

  39. Only one commenter caught that Trump’s policy would have saved this kid’s life.

    They should have picked a war hero. Not a casualty.

  40. More than one person has noticed that the Constitution looks just like a penis. Thus proving that the rich white males slaveowners who wrote it simply wanted to dick us over.

  41. Remember, the Constitution doesn’t say what it says, it says what the Supreme Court says it says.

    1. Unfortunately you’re right

  42. If he wanted to associate with a presidential candidate and political party who “has read the Constitution” he’s in the wrong place.

    Why didn’t he ask Hillary if she had ever read the 2nd Amendment?

    Or ask if any Democrat had ever read the 10th Amendment that limits the federal government to enumerated powers?

  43. Dumbest fucking article ever.

    1. You haven’t read the “Trump’s logo is a penis” article. Sudermanshould never be permitted to live that masterpiece down.

  44. Ooh, so powerful! He mentioned the constitution! He attacked trump! He’s against the Iraq war! He’s a poor unfortunate minority!

  45. (1) The US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination in immigration.

    (2) Obama has already instituted several “bans on Muslims”, namely by targeting largely Muslim countries for strong travel and immigration restrictions.

    (3) People need to get over this idea that religions are politically neutral and morally equivalent. If you choose to follow a particular religion and identify as a member, don’t complain when people treat you accordingly.

    1. Yeh this.

      I don’t understand how a hack like Suderman can serious highlight a DNC speaker that asks “have you even read the Constitution” regarding a topic on which the Constitution has nothing to say. Particularly when that same DNC actively promotes ignoring the direct wording of the Constitution. WTF?

      It is entirely Constitutional to restrict or ban travel from select groups that are deemed a danger to the security and social fabric of the USA. Its been done before, its being done now, it will be done in the future.

    2. The U.S. Constitution does prohibit an establishment of religion and any infringement on the free exercise of religion. An immigration ban specifically and directly on practitioners/adherents of Islam would not pass 1A muster.

      However, you can effect a ban for all practical purposes by singling out nationalities, which has been held as kosher by the courts.

      1. Not accurate. the constitution prohibits infringement on the belief of a religion, but does not prohibit the infringement practices that are counter to the public good. Numerous restrictions on religious practices have been implemented throughout USA history. Banning Sharia entirely as being counter to a free society could easily pass constitutional muster.

        “An immigration ban specifically and directly on practitioners/adherents of Islam would not pass 1A muster.” The constitution only applies to citizens. This has been clearly established by the courts. Any restrictions on immigration is fair game and has been done throughout history.

        1. The Constitution most assuredly does apply to non-citizens, and the courts have been quite consistent in saying so. Whether or not that means that religiously based restrictions on immigration would be found unconstitutional is unclear.

          1. um…example please? Because outside of due-process rights for folks already inside the borders of the country…. I can’t think of anytime when the rights described with the constitution were applied to non-citizens.

            1. Clarification…..I should have said “applied to folks outside the borders of the USA”.

              1. Clarification…..I should have said “applied to folks outside the borders of the USA”.

                Exactly.

          2. Whether or not that means that religiously based restrictions on immigration would be found unconstitutional is unclear.

            Given past immigration restrictions based on ideology, speech, or legal conduct, it is quite clear that the US immigration system can discriminate based on criteria that would be unconstitutional in other contexts.

        2. Sharia is a legal system, and as such, is in direct competition and mutually exclusive with the US’ legal system. Thus, it SHOULD be banned and discriminated against.

          Islam, however, is a religion, and the 1A does protect against gov’t infringement of religion.

      2. An immigration ban specifically and directly on practitioners/adherents of Islam would not pass 1A muster.

        The US government, in the past, has instituted immigration bans based on political views, race, ethnicity, past speech, certain legal conduct, and sexual orientation. I don’t see why a ban on membership in Islamic religious groups would be any different.

  46. Powerful moment, my ass. “Have you even read the constitution…?”
    Of course he has. And so has Gary, Hillary, Chuck Schumer, Chris Christie, Debbie Schulz….

    Every one of them (take a breath here, Peter, because I do mean every single last one of them) has read it.
    And they all said, “Fuck that !”
    Most of them got to do it in political office. Some are just now trying.
    Sometimes, and unfortunately, you really do come across like a 14 year old high school student who took his first Civics class, oblivious to the horrors that you and I were forcibly compelled to finance over the last many, many decades. Reality is a bitch.

  47. Father of a Fallen Muslim Soldier

    A muslim killed by other muslims.

    They sound kinda crazy and violent and maybe they should be left in the shitistans they created for themselves.

    1. Haven’t most fallen American soldiers (and just about all of them during our first 140 years or so as a nation) been Christians killed by other Christians? Proving what exactly?

      1. Proving that the Abrahamic religions all suck.

  48. The Democratic convention was an unending Trump hate fest. Their obsession with him is indicative of their fear.

    1. The obsessive hate fest is for a lot of very good reasons. Mostly because when the only thing on your menu is the worst kind of repacked,rancid donkey that no one wants, then that is really the only way you can sell it.

  49. If they hadn’t emigrated their son would never have come to the US…and he might still be alive instead of dying in one of our ceaseless wars. How do you like them apples Mr. Managing Editor?

  50. If they hadn’t emigrated their son would never have come to the US…and he might still be alive instead of dying in one of our ceaseless wars. How do you like them apples Mr. Managing Editor?

  51. If they hadn’t emigrated their son would never have come to the US…and he might still be alive instead of dying in one of our ceaseless wars. How do you like them apples Mr. Managing Editor?

  52. Trump probably hasn’t read the constitution, but Hillary almost certainly has, so what’s her excuse for the crap she’s pulling?

  53. I have wondered the same thing. It’s a fairly quick read actually; you can get through the body of the original Constitution in probably 10 minutes or less. Maybe about the same for the amendments. I don’t think Donald Trump has read it. I don’t think he reads much of anything. In fact, he pretty much admits that he doesn’t. I hope he is asked this question directly, maybe at the debates in September or October. Along with the follow-up, does he intend to read it before being inaugurated. It’s hard to “preserve, protect and defend” something when you don’t even know what it actually is.

  54. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  55. Like it or not, we’re slowly approaching the point where travel bans on hostile Muslim nations will feel like a viable options to American citizens.

    There’s limit to how much you can just fold your arms and say “you’re being racist and giving ISIS recruiting fodder” to any and every proposal to limit the flow of people from dangerous parts of the world. Most Americans don’t live in a DNC utopia where everyone is obsessed with representing and accepting every single aspect of differing cultures. Immigrants make a conscious effort to live in areas populated by their own kind. There’s no diversity in some podunk white town in Minnesota.

  56. Has Obama?

    He says he can kill any US citizen without a trial.
    He says the DEA can arrest you for taking LSD.
    He says he can wage war without congressional consent.
    He says you gotta buy some Obamacare or pay a tax.

    Well, has Obama read the US Constitution?

    1. I would surmise he has read it having taught constitutional law. The bigger question is, does he respect the constitution and does believe in the constitution? I would say he neither respect, believe in nor trust the constitution given his track record.

  57. Hudson . true that Chad `s blurb is flabbergasting… last week I got a gorgeous Alfa Romeo after having made $5229 this last 5 weeks and-over, $10k this past-munth . it’s actualy my favourite work I have ever had . I started this three months/ago and immediately started bringin home at least $80, per-hour . pop over to this website .

    ????????? http://www.maxincome20.com

  58. What does the Constitution have to do with it? Since when are non-Americans who want to get into our country protected by the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say we have to let anyone who wants in, in? Where does it say we are not allowed to restrict entry based on whatever criteria we deem justified? Yes, discrimination of non-Americans is perfectly fine when that discrimination will save lives. Non-Americans’ entry into this country is a privilege not a right.

  59. Invest a long time in your picture choice it will certainly pay off. POF Login Utilizing your login will allow you to search for males and females.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.