Constitutional Islam

Agreed. I was trying to be facetious.

 

You are incorrect.

"In order to have been eligible for restitution, an applicant had to have been alive on August 10, 1988; a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien during the internment period (12/7/41-6/30/46); a person of Japanese ancestry, or the spouse or parent of a person of Japanese ancestry; and, evacuated, relocated, interned, or otherwise deprived of liberty or property as a result of federal government action during the internment period and based solely on their Japanese ancestry."

- www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/February/059cr.htm

 

Question: The US government apologized and paid reparations but did they make a new law saying it can never happen again? Just wondering. Especially since the conspiracy theorists believe the camps being constructed are for Christians.

 

That will not happen in the United States.

 

Muslim president, muslims in Congress, muslims in the military, 5-6 million muslims rioting in American streets (like in France) or going door to door. Don't even need to change the constitution to make it happen - just declare martial law....yes, I can see it happening in the USA. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists are right, they just have mistaken who the players will be....

 

Personally, I think that if evangelical Christians get locked up in the US, our jailers will call themselves Christians.

 

Wrong, the Court has ruled that the FUNDAMENTAL rights of aliens are protected. Nationally statutes aimed at aliens are judged on the rational basis test and they cannot be arbitrary, whereas state laws are judged based on strict scrutiny of whether "alienage" is a "suspect class". Aliens, for example, have a right to most forms of employment (In re Griffiths (1973) a Connecticut law requiring US citizenship for admission to practice law was held invalid). In 1978 the court upheld a NY law limiting US citizenship to those applying to the police force (Foley v. Connelie). The court adopted the idea that citizenship is a relative qualification for fufilling "important nonelective executive, legislative, and judicial positions held by officers who participate directly in....broad judicial policy". Even illegal aliens have basic fundamental rights including education, (Pyler v. Doe (1982)). Guess what...RELIGION is a basic fundamental right.

Now as far as in times of war constitutional rights are balanced against the power to protect. Take Korematsu v. US (1944), Justice Black specifically states, "it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support". Even more importantly is Ex Parte Endo (1944), where the court sided with Mitsuye Endo as she had gone through appropriate government procedures and was classified as being loyal to the US therefore the government had no right to detain her in an internment camp.

In our present situation there is no substantial military threat that warrants martial law. Secondly, we have been attacked by terrorists not a specific country as with the Japenese in WWII. Third, we cannot take away the freedom of religion to one group in the US, (muslim immigrants), but maintain the freedom of religion for American muslims, an arbitrary application of the law.

I don't know why you mentioned the Dred Scott case because that has nothing to do with this. That case dealt with states rights and not immigration.

 

No the justices balanced the power of the government to protect a majority of citizens with actual perceived threat. However, the court was clear in followup cases that civil rights cannot be denied as long as citizens have been classified as being loyal to the US.

 

Wellk, I have also read the end of The Book and I have a different interpretation than you.

 

If agreeing with this makes me a liberal, than that must be what I am.

 

Traditionally, supporting consitutional freedom is the conservative stance

 

Amen to that. When I was stationed in England I fell in love with a Brit and we married. The paperwork and special trips we had to make to London was unbelievable. It took us many trips and over a year to finally get my wife a green card to come to Plattsburgh AFB in NY. The process she had to go through was tedious, inefficient, and even humilating. We often wonder how everyone else does it so easily...

 

What struck me was just how comfortable the agents were with a process that just seemed to make no sense.

 

Do you know of Christian Missionaries calling for the destruction of a nation, genocide, and theocracy?

Wait, let me rephrase that, are Christians calling the for the destruction of a nation, genocide and a theacracy?

 

No one - it is a precedent setter that concerns me. A religious test is a TERRIBLE precedent to set/