Friday, May 6, 2016

Trump and Ryan

I think this exchange gets at a lot of what has happened in the Republican Party this year:
Paul Ryan: I am not ready to endorse Donald Trump. . . . I think conservatives want to know: Does he share our values and our principles on limited government, the proper role of the executive, adherence to the Constitution? There’s a lot of questions that conservatives, I think, are going to want answers to.

Trump: I'm not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda. . . . Perhaps in the future we can work together and come to an agreement about what is best for the American people. They have been treated so badly for so long that it is about time for politicians to put them first!
Ryan and his allies have made a religion of conservatism, with a creed to which they expect all Republicans to swear fidelity.

Trump counters that what really matters is the people – or his people, anyway – and politicians should put defending their people above a bunch of lofty language about a 225-year-old piece of paper. If the Constitution says we can't discriminate against Muslim immigrants, to hell with the Constitution. Defending the people against terrorism should come first.

And before anything else, Republicans need to win. Why, Trump asks, would anybody listen to Mitt Romney, who couldn't even beat Obama? All of his adherence to the party line didn't end up helping any conservatives, because he didn't get to be president.

Trump offered Republican voters this choice: do you want some kind of conservative priest who can recite doctrine all day, or a winner who will fight for you whether that's in the doctrine or not? His victory shows what the average Republican voter thinks.

9 comments:

Shadow Flutter said...

More executive orders?

kpgoog said...

Remember that the RNC asked all the candidates to sign a "loyalty pledge" that required the candidates to support the eventual nominee. Trump signed. Trump is in effect the nominee. Guess it doesnt go both ways.

pithom said...

"Ryan and his allies have made a religion of conservatism"

-No, he hasn't. Maybe Cruz has, but Ryan was a leading House bailout advocate.

"with a creed to which they expect all Republicans to swear fidelity."

-That is "God bless the Establishment".

"If the Constitution says we can't discriminate against Muslim immigrants"

-It doesn't say that.

G. Verloren said...

@pithom

"If the Constitution says we can't discriminate against Muslim immigrants"

-It doesn't say that.


Article IV, Section 2 - "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment IX - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

G. Verloren said...

@pithom

And even if you argue none of the above technically constitutes an undeniable prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds as they leave room for interpretation, there's still the fact of our nation's laws are the interpretation, and are arguably a direct extension of the Constitution itself.

John said...

A law banning Muslim immigration is a law establishing Christianity as a preferred religion. The courts have generally interpreted the 1st Amendment to mean that Congress can make no law giving practitioners of one religion preference over those practicing another religion. It is true that would-be immigrants do not have all the rights of citizens, but a ban on Muslims would have no chance of surviving judicial scrutiny.

pithom said...

"A law banning Muslim immigration is a law establishing Christianity as a preferred religion."

-No, it's not. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

"It is true that would-be immigrants do not have all the rights of citizens, but a ban on Muslims would have no chance of surviving judicial scrutiny."

-Actually, it would have every chance of doing so. The law is clear on this. Nowhere in the Constitution or Federal law does it say that the U.S. government must consider all immigration applications equally, without regard to religion.

G. Verloren said...

@pithom

Simple logic dictates that one cannot create a law which singly disparages one religion without it directly promoting a different religion.

This is akin to how a glass of water cannot be both empty and full at the same time - the one state is inextricably linked to the other.

It it therefor literally impossible to logically argue that singly banning Muslim immigration into the United States does not preference all other religions, among them Christianity.

And the Constitution clearly prohibits such religious preference in laws, as noted in the excerpts I provided above. It quite clearly does say that "the U.S. government must consider all immigration applications equally, without regard to religion", because to do otherwise would incontestibly necessitate "a law respecting an establishment of religion", which Congress is flatly prohibited from making.

You can't argue with self evident truths.

pithom said...

It is self-evident that there is no religion in the world named "non-Islam" and that banning members of a certain religion from immigrating to this country does not constitute an "establishment of religion", nor does it prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Cite any relevant (i.e., immigration-related) court case against this. Go ahead. I'm waiting.