Mainstream Media Mislead Public and Themselves Over Constitutionality of Donald Trump's Proposed Immigration Policy
New York Times Blathering Nonsense
by
Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law
Stephen L. D’Andrilli
Edited by Brian Anse Patrick
Republican
Party bigwigs remain frustrated at the American electorate’s continued refusal
to support their hand-selected favorite, Jeb Bush. But while their money may
not buy public support it can certainly buy media coverage.
The
latest episode in the big media attack on establishment outsider Donald Trump
falsely asserts that Mr. Trump’s ideas on limiting immigration are
unconstitutional. The assertion is absurd on its face. Syrians and citizens in
foreign countries do not enjoy the rights privileges and immunities granted
under the U.S. Constitution. In legal terms, they are not party to the U.S.
social contract.
The more
the threat of Mr. Trump’s popularity grows, the more desperately the leftist-leaning
New York
Times and the big
business-centric Wall Street Journal have
attacked him. Mainstream media attempt to demonize Trump by sheer name-calling,
using “devil words” such as demagogue,
toxic,
extremist and racist. Even though FBI Director James Comey
admits that the hundreds of thousands of potential Middle-eastern immigrants
cannot be vetted, and clear evidence shows that Islamic terrorists pose a
tangible threat to the U.S, media bigwigs treat Mr. Trump’s appeal for a reasonable
exercise of prudence as if were an outrage.
Mr. Trump
simply proposes to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists by employing the
temporary expedient of banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the U.S. But
there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes Congress from enacting
quotas, consistent with its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And the editors of The New York Times must know this.
Trump has
not deported anyone, nor locked up or otherwise brutalized any Muslims,
immigrants or others. The danger next year, of course, is giving him the power
to do so. And the danger right now is allowing him to legitimize the hatred
that he so skillfully exploits, and to revive the old American tendency, in frightening
times, toward, vicious treatment of the weak and outsiders.
Beyond
its yellow journalism aspect, this passage comprises a classic straw man argument. The newspaper attempts to beat
up Mr. Trump on matters he has never countenanced. Mr. Trump has never said,
nor suggested, that he would take or wish to take any illegal action against
U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslims, or who happen to practice Islam, or that
he would encourage Congress to do so. And Mr. Trump has never said nor
intimated that America’s Muslims cannot or ought not be able to practice their
religion. Nor has Mr. Trump ever said or suggested that American Muslims should
be deported or interned. If it were not for the U.S. constitution’s guarantee
of Freedom of the Press concerning political speech, such wild assertions as
made by The Times would be deemed actionable as character
defamation.
The same NYT edition conveniently features an
essentially misleading article, “Is Trump’s Plan Legal?” by Peter J. Spiro, constitutional law
professor at Temple University. This article seems intended to support The Times’ quasi-legalistic mumbo jumbo, but this legal expert has
virtually nothing to say on supposedly unconstitutional aspects of Mr. Trump’s
proposal. Can it be because there is no sound legal argument to be made?
Instead Mr. Spiro dithers on about history and morality.
Even The Times editors appear to admit that their assertions do not stand,
at least not on any legal footing. This is reflected when the original title of
the article, “Is Trump’s Plan Legal?” was
altered in the digital version to read: “Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan is Awful. And Constitutional.” With the professor’s academic reputation
on the line, one suspects that he could hardly have been pleased with the
original title that seemed to advance NYT’s
ridiculous unconstitutionality claim under his name. Mr. Spiro apparently, one
guesses, requested a change to the title after the print version of the
newspaper had gone to press. The digital version of the article reflects the
change.
Since Mr.
Spiro cannot sensibly assert the illegality, under the U.S. Constitution, of Mr. Trump’s proposal,
temporarily barring non-citizen Muslims from entering this Country, he
instead argues that the proposal is “awful,” that is to say, immoral. Deep philosophy this is not. Mr. Spiro then makes
a tortuous attempt to tie morality and constitutionality together by drawing a
distinction between a colloquial meaning for the word constitutional and the legal meaning of the word.
Mr. Spiro
claims, highlighted by the Times, that Mr.
Trump’s proposal “might pass judicial
muster.” That doesn’t make it
constitutional.”
But once
again this appears as an absurd remark. It is doubly absurd in that it appears
paradoxical in view of the altered title of Mr. Spiro’s article: Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan
is awful. And Constitutional. That
Mr. Trump’s proposal would pass judicial muster remains the only salient point.
And it certainly would.
Mr.
Spiro, however, appeals to a vague metaphor, asserting that Mr. Trump’s
proposal is illegal in the court of public opinion. But
unless there is something in our system of laws that
demonstrates that Mr. Trump’s proposal, if implemented, would be illegal as
determined by a court of law, whatever the fictive court of public opinion has to say about the matter counts for
nothing. One must suppose that the editors of The Times imagine
themselves as the chief spokespersons for
this illusory court. But it is the legal sense of the meaning of constitutional that is relevant here. And, what is the
legal meaning of the word, ‘constitutional?’ The word means, “consistent with the
constitution; authorized by the constitution; not conflicting with any
provision of the constitution or fundamental law of the state.” And this is certainly true of Mr. Trump’s
proposal.
The
bottom line is that Mr. Trump’s proposal is legally sound, despite NYT’s assault on Mr. Trump policies, principles
and character. One wonders after reading the above cited articles, who exactly
is it that The Times editors are trying so very hard to
mislead —the public or themselves? We suggest that they are doing a fine job of
the latter.
___________________________
___________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment