Trump Phenomenon Part III: New York Times v. Reality

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.

Nevertheless an NYT editorial of December 10, 2015,“The Trump Effect, and How It Spreads,” asserts:

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. 
___________________________

President Christie the Destroyer

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF-WANNABE WHO WOULD THOUGHTLESSLY COMMIT AMERICA TO THERMONUCLEAR WAR IS INTOLERANT OF CITIZENS’ RIGHTS TO SELF DEFENSE

Schizoid Governor Wants to Shoot Down Russian Planes While Disarming U.S.  Citizens

By 

Roger Katz, Attorney at Law

Stephen L. D'Andrilli

Edited by Brian Anse Patrick 

A statement by a Republican Party candidate Chris Christie in the December 15 GOP debate was so horrifically absurd it deserves commentary, even though it was ignored by the usually hypercritical mainstream media.

We refer to a remark of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in response to a hypothetical question by Wolf Blitzer, CNN moderator, concerning how America ought to react to a Russian plane entering into a U.S. created no-fly zone in Syria.

Christie said: “Not only would we be prepared to do it [shoot down a Russian military aircraft], I would do it. A no-fly zone means a no-fly zone, Wolf, that’s what it means.”

This cowboy response might be expected from Dr. Strangelove, but not from the Governor of one of the most densely populated American states, and certainly not from a U.S. President. Did it occur to the Governor that it might be a good idea to perhaps talk with the Russians before committing to war? What if the hypothetical Russian plane were in route to a relief mission or to interdict terrorists? The Russians have every bit as much at stake as the U.S. in the matter of controlling terrorism, for their experiences include the Metrojet Charter bombing, the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow and the murdered and raped school kids at Breslau. 

The remark also underscores what appears to be a schizoid aspect of Governor Christie, namely the abrupt inconsistency between his gunslinger attitude and actual policy of his administration. This “quick-on-the-draw” executive governs a State that ranks among the top five States with the most oppressive firearms’ laws. New Jersey treats even law-abiding non-resident handgun carry permit holders with high-handed disdain. Should non-residents inadvertently bring handguns into the State while in transit elsewhere, they are prosecuted to the full extent of New Jersey law. This man who would irresponsibly start a war with a nuclear power apparently cannot tolerate the idea of lawful carry by responsible licensed citizens.  

And should a law-abiding New Jersey resident wish to secure a handgun carry permit for self-defense, forget about it! New Jersey has issued only a handful of handgun carry permits – all of which have gone to “connected” politicians and judicial officers in the State.

If elected President of the United States, Governor Chris Christie– ostensibly a “Republican” but whose actions place him in the category of Antigun Progressive Democrat – would most likely work toward securing a disarmed American public, in the same mold as New Jersey.

For comparative purposes we might consider what would happen if Russia created a no fly-zone and shot down an American plane. Imagine the outrage. And yet the first idea that flies out of Christie’s mouth is to shoot first, with no questions asked because, “a no fly zone means a no fly zone.” 

Socrates Mr. Christie is not. 
 

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has a perhaps undeserved reputation as a cowboy in the Western media, appears restrained and measured in comparison to Governor Christie. We have a non-hypothetical event by which to judge Putin when a Turkish military aircraft recently shot down a Russian military craft. Turkey being a N.A.T.O. ally, this act brings guilt by association upon the U.S. Fortunately Mr. Putin appears to have a cooler head than Mr. Christie. So a Mr. Putin, Christie is not either.

As a chief executive Chris Christie apparently would see no reason not to directly engage Russia. At the debate on Tuesday, he seemed eager to do so. Why fight with Mother Russia over a group of murderous jihadists in Syria that comprise a tangible, explicit threat to both East and West? Is this Mr. Christie’s vanity speaking? His ego?

Even though Christie’s attitudes may seem schizoid on the surface, underneath there appears to be a unifying theme: a propensity toward unrestrained use of power by the few. Mr. Christie shares this trait with Ms. Hillary Clinton. Both are scourges of Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and would exercise power to disarm law-abiding Americans’ of their natural right of defense against criminals, lunatics, foreign- and homegrown radicalized extremists. And both seem more than willing to do as they please, consequences for others be damned.

Trump Phenomenon Part II: Establishment Attack Dogs

The following article has been obligingly submitted by Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law, and Stephen L. D'Andrilli.  Regarding Mr. Trump, this past several days I have heard uttered numerous astounding stupidities from many sources, none of whom appear to realize that as a sovereign nation, the United States of America has certain rights and obligations to control its borders. Mr. Katz and Mr. D'Andrilli offer a useful, grounded perspective on the current attack phenomenon. See also my earlier post "Aristotle on Trump."   BAP


      Attack On Trump’s Immigration Proposal Undercuts Congressional Authority

DETRACTORS HAVE IT WRONG: TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL IS CONSTITUTIONAL!

Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law

Stephen. L. D’Andrilli

The recent attack on Donald Trump is most curious. It is coming not only from sources that you would have every reason to expect, but from sources that you would have every good reason not to expect: Dick Cheney, former Vice President under George W. Bush; Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader; and John Yoo, U.S Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, who served in the Administration of George W. Bush. These individuals have all spoken out, vociferously, against Donald Trump’s recent remarks concerning barring Muslims from entering the Country.

The mainstream news media and leading Democrats and, oddly enough, the Republican leadership itself, finds Trump’s comments alarming. But, alarming to whom? Muslims? Alarming, we see, to those Americans who don’t like Trump’s proposal and, for that matter, those who don’t like Trump, and who seek to undermine his campaign by whatever means possible. But, Trump’s proposal should not be alarming at all to Americans who seek protection from the deadly impact of jihadism – jihadism that exists around the world and has now made its appearance in the United States. From that perspective Trump’s proposal is quite modest and reasonable.

Indeed, if there is any national security proposal that should be alarming to the American people it is The New York Times’ call for confiscation of firearms from the hands of law-abiding Americans. But, that proposal, coming from the publishers and editors of a major newspaper, receives precious little condemnation that it richly deserves. And, it is from major mainstream newspapers, both left-wing papers, namely and particularly, the New York Times, and conservative newspapers, too, namely, and particularly, the Wall Street Journal that we see scathing editorials on Trump – editorials that attack him on both a personal, visceral level, and on a public policy level. Fortunately, some news commentators go to bat for Trump.

Andrew Wilkow, whose radio program, “The Wilkow Majority,” airs on SiriusXM 125, weekdays, made the perceptive point, on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, that Trump is being blasted not for what he actually said about barring Muslims from our shores, but for what he never said. The mainstream media, with assistance from Republicans themselves, is attacking Trump and, by extension, those Americans who support him. And, it is important to take note that the attack on Trump is definitely an attack on Americans themselves.

News pundits assert that Trump’s immigration policies, barring Muslims from our Country, until such time as this Nation gets a handle on the problem of Islamic radicalism, is unconstitutional. The suggestion is that Trump’s proposal is inconsistent with the First Amendment’s bar against the establishment of religion clause and free exercise of religion clause. But, Trump never stated that American Muslims – citizens who presently reside in this Country and who have resided in this Country for some time – cannot or ought not be permitted to continue to practice their religion, freely. Trump’s proposal pertains to immigration only. And there is nothing in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from enacting laws or establishing immigration quotas. So, the assertion that Trump’s immigration proposal is unconstitutional is false, on its face.

In fact the U.S. has maintained immigration quotas for decades and, while Congress essentially abolished immigration quotas through enactment of the Immigration Act of 1965, Congress can certainly reintroduce a quota system, consistent with the powers conferred to it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

If the mainstream news media, and Government leaders, and news commentators, and, of late, foreign governments, believe that Trump’s suggestion for reinstatement of a quota system, temporarily barring Muslims from entering the U.S., is in fact unconstitutional, they are simply wrong. And, if they know that the assertion is false, then they are liars as well. There is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that legally precludes Congress from enacting a law for that very purpose and, in fact, there is explicit language in the U.S. Constitution that permits Congress to do just that.

It is therefore extremely odd to say the least that those who would bring up a legal issue, where there is none, express no reservation in denying to Americans’ their Constitutional rights, where there clearly exists one.

The Obama Administration has clearly violated American’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, through creation of and implementation of massive surveillance operations and campaigns against all Americans. And they design new ones every day. That clear violation of Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights is claimed to be justified on the ground of national security. It isn’t! And, on Saturday, December 5, 2015, in a rare front page editorial, the New York Times urged a national campaign to disarm Americans’ – in clear violation of Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – on the absurd, and disingenuous ground, that taking guns away from all Americans is the best way to protect Americans from radical Islam. It won’t!

But, in the same breath, these Government officials and Government Legislators, and mainstream news media sources have expressed no reservation in attacking Trump’s immigration proposal on the ground that his proposal, if implemented, would violate the First Amendment establishment clause and free exercise of religion clause when, in fact, there is no violation of the First Amendment at all precisely because the individuals that Trump is talking about aren’t American citizens. They do not reside in this Country and never did, and should not be allowed to do so now – especially, given the dire situation in the World today. That is Trump’s message. That is Trump’s warning. And, there is nothing in that message to suggest a violation of any American’s First Amendment Constitutional Rights.

Trump simply wishes to keep more Muslims out of the Country at the present time and until the Nation’s leaders get the matter of Islamic extremism under control. Trump said nothing more; and he said nothing less. He certainly said nothing about arresting and deporting law-abiding Americans who practice the religion of Islam. And he certainly said nothing about curtailing the practice of Islam by Americans. And nothing Trump did say implies such actions. Had he done so, then there would, of course, be reason to attack Trump’s proposal on First Amendment Constitutional grounds. That he did not do, so we gain nothing by pretending that he did. So there is nothing in Trump’s proposal, if implemented, that would amount to a violation of the First Amendment. And, the liberal intelligentsia in this Country certainly know this.

What the liberal intelligentsia do is illustrative of a classic “straw man” fallacy. They set up an argument for remarks that Trump never made and, for that matter, never implied, and they attack him on those, rather on the remarks Trump did make and on the sensible implications of those remarks. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in Trump’s proposal that suggests that American Muslims cannot practice their religion, much less that American Muslims ought to be deported. So, to say that Trump’s immigration policy conflicts with the First Amendment is altogether unsound. He is simply addressing an immigration matter that falls squarely within the powers of Congress.

Curiously, those who excoriate Trump on his immigration proposal are actually undercutting Congressional powers and authority. They do so by tacitly asserting that Congress does not have the authority to preclude Muslims from entering this Country. That suggestion is patently false. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority and has sole authority to enact laws pertaining to naturalization – which includes immigration.

To assert otherwise is to say that Congress is forbidden to exercise its powers under the Constitution. It is not Trump, then, but his detractors who are asserting matters that directly and negatively impact the Constitution. Trump’s proposal, itself, does not raise a legal, statutory issue, much less a Constitutional one under any scenario.

That leaves one matter to be discussed: the matter of morality. Trump’s detractors imply that Trump is attacking American Muslims who live in this Country and those outside it because his immigration policy is offensive. That may be, but so what? While some in this Country may condemn Trump’s proposal on moral grounds, one might reasonably counter that argument by arguing that, to permit Muslims to enter this Country, at this time, given the present circumstances, is immoral, too. To allow Muslims into this Country at this time is immoral precisely because such practice would increase, exponentially, Americans’ susceptibility to acts of violence committed by jihadists. Muslims cannot be vetted. Government authorities haven’t devised the tools to do so, and they have admitted as much. So, letting Muslims into this Country, at this point in time, would definitely make this Country less safe – much less safe for ordinary Americans. That certainly would be immoral! Yet, the attack against Trump continues. Trump, though, is among the few – extremely few – candidates for U.S. President who actually expresses a desire to protect this Country from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. He is vilified when he should be praised. He is roundly denounced when he should be emulated. He is ridiculed when he should be respected.

Ultimately, Trump represents a return to sanity in this Country; a return to security for this Country; a return to the sanctity of the individual; and a return to love for Country. Those who attack him both within the Republican Party and outside it, both within this Country and now abroad, are really attacking the millions of Americans who support Trump.

The attack against Trump is, then, really an attack against Americans and against America itself. Those un-American powers and forces that control this Republic and who control the Republican Party in particular are very afraid now, because Trump’s popularity among Americans continues to wax, rather than wane. Trump is the last candidate these un- American powers and forces want to see representing the Republican Party. If, then, the majority of average American citizens, who are Republicans, do select Trump as their candidate of choice, and if the Party ignores its rank and file members and goes its own way, nominating a person who can be and will be controlled – who represents the international, globalist, neoliberal community – then the jig is most certainly up.

If the will of the American people is ignored, those that control the Government apparatus will no longer be able to work their illusions on the public. They will no longer be able to fool the American people since it will be they, not the American people, who are making the decision as to whom should lead the Nation. We will know that. And, we will know, too, beyond any doubt, that the Republic is lost and that the Republic has been very well lost for quite some time, now.

____________________________________________

Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz, Attorney at Law, and Stephen L. D’Andrilli. All Rights Reserved.  Article used with express permission of copyright holders.  

    

GRAD PROPAGANDA CLASS OFFERING