Are the Courts upholding the Constitution or not? : Muslim/ Travel Ban

For this weeks class we looked at the justice courts in America and their influence in our American government. We started with the foundations of the court and the significance of some major justices such as Marshall, Rehnquist, and Roberts. We then looked deeper at national courts and learned how there are 94 federal district courts at the bottom of the chain. Then 13 Appellate Courts in the middle level with the Supreme Court as the ruling law of the land. Then, the book looked at who was appointed to the supreme court and how they got there. Finally, we looked at the Supreme Court in action and how it is the national policymaker in the United States and those outside influences on the court.

However, what I want to focus on is if our Supreme court is upholding the laws written out by our Constitution. A more recent ruling given out by the Supreme Court has brought this question to the forefront. The New York Times released just earlier today, December 4th, that they will allow the third version of President Trump’s travel ban to go into effect while legal challenges against it continue.The problem with this travel ban is that it does not allow people from certain countries to travel into the United States, which is technically not unconstitutional. However, Donald Trump originally introduced this plan as a, “Muslim Ban”. As you can see in this video, Trump clearly wants this ban to be towards those of the Muslim faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sz0KY-3PbQ

However, this “Muslim” ban is in clear violation of what the United States courts are supposed to uphold. This ban is in direct violation of the first amendment of the constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. These clauses state that our government cannot make any law prohibiting the practice of a religion or not allowing people to enter the United States based purely on religion. On the contrary however, Trump has now changed the ban itself and the rhetoric behind it to be a “Travel Ban” instead of a “Muslim Ban”. So, now our government is not deciding the countries who get banned based on religion but simply areas we have perceived threats within. Trump now posits the argument that he is enforcing this legislation for the overall safety of the American people. As you can see, the argument goes back and forth between Americans on whether this ban is constitutional or not. My question to you is what do you think? Is the court acting in accordance with the law of the constitution by allowing this ban to go into effect? A poll done by The Hill, a political website, showed that around 52% of Americans think this ban is constitutional, while 39% simply think it is an attack at Muslims.

My response would be to acknowledge that this question at hand certainly has limitations because of arguments of how strict we should follow the constitution. However, I think it is more important to look at the facts at hand. The major fact that sticks out comes from the FBI that 94% of terrorist attacks taken place in the United States from 1980 to 2005 were done by non-muslims. So, my question is the merit behind this ban. Is this ban just a divisive tool used by the President or is it a genuine concern? Are our courts upholding the constitution or acting in ways that go against our core values?

Trump's Muslim ban 3.0 is still unconstitutional

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336579-poll-half-support-trump-travel-ban

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

Esteban Lara says:

December 5, 2017 at 8:17 pm

I think this is an interesting perspective on what the Supreme Court’s ruling represents and how it relates to Donald Trump’s plans and ideas about Muslim countries. It’s pretty fair to say that Donald Trump has had pretty discriminatory opinions about many different cultures, races, and religions and I do think you’re correct in asserting that the real purpose for this travel ban was based/grounded on those racist beliefs. That being said I don’t particularly think that the Supreme Court’s decision is unconstitutional, per se. Of course Donald Trump proposed this travel ban to uphold his racist views and opinions, but the travel ban itself is not actually excluding people because of their race or their religion (as I understand it). Pretty much everyone (including myself) will agree that it’s wrong to have this travel ban and that the real reason behind it is prejudicial and discriminatory, but the actual law itself doesn’t violate the constitution’s ideals. It was without a doubt a very tricky decision the Supreme Court had to make but they can’t let their assumptions as to the intentions of the president get in the way of them deciding what is just and what isn’t, they can only look at the technical and factual aspect of each case they review.

Alexandra Friedman says:

December 7, 2017 at 3:53 pm

I think that this is an extremely important issue that is very relevant to this chapter. I am glad I got to read more about it in your blog post. In my opinion, I think that there are many dimensions to the question you pose. First, it is clearly not right to ban certain groups from entering the country according to the constitution. Like you pointed out, we are sometimes unsure of how strictly to follow the words of the founding fathers. Ironically, the people who want to have a stronger interpretation tend to be politically conservative; thus it would be somewhat hypocritical for them to use this as a defense. In my mind, this ban goes against the very basis of what the US stands for. We are a country that grew out of religious oppression and founded by people who were seeking to voice their own opinions. By imposing this ban, we are doing a disservice to our history and to our country’s future. In addition, you are correct in pointing out how irrelevant letting muslims into the country is on our safety and security. Trump’s plan seems to make little relevant sense; 0 refugees from banned countries have killed anyone in the US. In the past 40 years, only 17 people from these countries have even attempted an attack. So, why is our country focusing on discriminatory, irrelevant policies instead of focusing on all the other issues we have? Only Donald Trump knows.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/index.html