• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Khizr Khan Believes the Constitution ‘Must Always Be Subordinated to the Sharia’

Glen Contrarian said:
If he can't handle dirty tricks during an election, how the heck is he gonna handle much dirtier tricks by other nations once he's elected?
Click to expand...
Let his state department or ambassador to the the 'dirty tricking' nation handle it.
 
tres borrachos said:
My understanding from people who have been admitted to the Bar in New York, and I'll defer to anyone who is a lawyer on this (like Turtle or Disney), he would have to possess knowledge of the Constitution in order to be a practicing attorney.

Mr. Trump, from what I have seen, has not been gathering "experts" to get their opinions. His consults with his children, and very few other people. He has no understanding about most of what he says. I have seen many articles written by attorneys saying that what he has proposed can be unconstitutional. I've seen a lot of attorneys say things Obama has proposed are unconstitutional, and Obama is an attorney.

We can discuss semantics all day long. Trump is completely untrustworthy, and because he says something doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

If Mr. Khan passed the bar exam, he would have had to answer some multiple-choice questions on constitutional law. But because the exam covers quite a few other subjects, he could have answered most of the con law questions wrong and still managed to pass. In any case, the questions cover only fairly basic material. Someone who had never taken any con law classes in law school might rely on what he had gotten out of review courses and study guides to get him thorough the con law part of the exam.

Mr. Trump said at the time he made his proposal to exclude all would-be Muslim immigrants (which I don't think would be a good policy) that experts in constitutional law had told him that nothing in the Constitution would bar doing that. I know most of the Supreme Court cases having to do with the constitutional rights of aliens. The Court has never suggested that any constitutional protections apply to aliens who have never entered U.S. territory.

You say you've seen many articles written by attorneys saying that what he has proposed--and I'm guessing you mean the earlier proposal to exclude all Muslims--can be unconstitutional. I'd like to read them, just to see if I'm missing something. I don't see anything in the Constitution that a federal immigration law which excluded all Muslims would violate.

I don't disagree with your general opinion of Trump. Here, I'm interested only in the question whether a law excluding would-be immigrants solely because they were Muslims would be unconstitutional. Khan is only one of the people to claim it would be (I assume that's what he meant by waving a copy of the Constitution when discussing Muslim immigrants), and I believe that claim is false.
 
cabse5 said:
Let his state department or ambassador to the the 'dirty tricking' nation handle it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, guy, but life doesn't work that way. The one in the Oval Office has gotta be the one to make the hard calls...and the LAST thing I want to see is someone there who's so easily manipulated. The other nations would use him and abuse him and put him away wet...and we'd be forced to go along for the ride.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Sorry, guy, but life doesn't work that way. The one in the Oval Office has gotta be the one to make the hard calls...and the LAST thing I want to see is someone there who's so easily manipulated. The other nations would use him and abuse him and put him away wet...and we'd be forced to go along for the ride.
Click to expand...
The last two guys, W and BO did it that way. One guy isn't going to be an expert on everything. The one guy will have a 'mission statement' on how and what things should get done, though.

Sidenote: I think there is enough information about presidential candidates to make a learned decision. Much more information available for a presidential decision than for, for instance, a Supreme Court nominee.
 
well, it's just circumstantial, but can anyone show me an example of a stable (no coups in living memory) Muslim-majority Republican Democracy? Islamic law, and Islam in general, does not mesh with liberty. as for liberals and their endless whitewashing/apologist behavior regarding Islam...look into the criminal 'penalty' for homosexuality in most Muslim nations. Hint: queers are beheaded.

but, i guess, it's more important that trump said something stupid, or that a little church in florida has a no gays sign, lol. carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom