Ignorance of the Basic Values of Our Country Issues

     This marks the second week we have been studying the Constitution. What has been interesting in studying this revered document is that the Constitution is still entirely relevant and whats more, it's the supreme authority on what goes in the U.S., even though it is over 200 years old. The Constitution continues to support or condemn the happenings in our country.

     The recent terrorist attack on Paris is proving to be causing wider and wider ripples. On Monday, December 7, a statement was released by Donald Trump that he is "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Cue the presses.

     Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, categorized this statement under "disqualifying" for the GOP presidential candidate. He also called out the other Republicans, declaring they needed to revoke their support of his candidacy. He said, "If they are so cowed by Mr. Trump and his supporters that they are not willing to stand by the values enshrined by the Constitution, then they have no business serving as the president of the United States themselves."

     Other responses to Trump's statement were of the same negative light, though more moderate that Earnest. House Speaker Paul Ryan said "what was proposed was not what the party stands for or the country stands for", and other candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio also criticized the proposal.

     What has made the statement so scandalous, even more so than Trump's many other offensive remarks, is that this one is starkly unconstitutional. In the First Amendment, our country's dedication to religious equality is enumerated. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Should this statement become law, it would most definitely be in respect to a religion; banning a specific religious group from anything is quite in respect to them. They will also certainly not be able to freely exercise their religion in our country if they are banned from entering it.

     Aside from this, which is altogether sufficient to prove it unconstitutional, Trump's proposal would also be unconstitutional even disregarding the religion factor. In his statement, Trump proposed denying any Muslim entry into America. He did not include a provision for Muslims who were citizens of the U.S. and were returning from an out of the country trip. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not allowing a person to freely reenter their own country, and therefore withholding their property from them, would be unconstitutional. Unless Trump plans on giving every Muslim a legal hearing. And I don't think he does. 

     So it is obvious that this proposal of Trump's could never make it very far. Whether or not he does is still in the air. In any case it is a comfort to know that our Constitution, set in place so long ago, will continue to protect our rights no matter what religion we are.

Click below to read an article about this event:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/white-house-press-secretary-slams-disqualifying-trump-comments-n476351

Inherent Issues

     In our government class this week we have begun studying the Constitution. While the original constitution itself is over 200 years old, throughout the history of the U.S. there have been many amendments to the constitution. The actions required to make these additions are still occurring today.

     Yesterday, Dec.3, the Senate voted on two new amendments proposed by Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Dianne Feinstein. The new legislation was put forward in response to the San Bernadino shooting Wednesday, Dec. 2. Manchin's was a push to expand back ground checks on the buyers of guns bought online or through gun shows. Feinstein's was also a push for more thorough background checks, focusing primarily on those on the terror watch list. Neither amendment was accepted. They needed 60 votes, but Manchin's was short 10 votes, and Feinstein's lacked the support of 6. It was supposed that the recent tragedy in San Bernadino might help to pass these new measures, but it was not enough to sway those critical senate votes. Very similar legislation was proposed after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary as well, but was voted on with very similar results.
     The Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Republican, countered the Feingold amendment with his own measure, seeking to institute a 72 hour delay for those on the terror watch list who wished to purchase a firearm, which could become a permanent delay if a judge found probable cause to do so. His argument was that Feingold's amendment was unconstitutional. His own was 5 votes away from passing. Sen. Rand Paul (R), proposed a measure that would allow concealed carry licenses in D.C. Every Democratic vote was against it, 54 to 45.
     The House as well is stirring over the gun control topic. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, is asking that House Speaker Paul Ryan put together a committee for gun safety, and for the House to vote on the same amendments the Senate recently voted on.

     It is very clear, and reasonable, that gun control is a hot topic right now. Amendments were very quickly proposed in response to the shooting. Though this is a very appropriate time to address the issue of gun control, it will not be rushed. Both parties in Congress have their own firm beliefs on this very polarizing topic. While the constitution is said to be living and breathing, it seems to shuffle and wheeze when it comes to change.
     And it was designed this way by the framers. One important aspect to an instrumental framer, James Madison, was that the government not be subject to the passions of the people. The representative democracy that is our government acts as a buffer to the immediate and strong opinions of the people to moderate them into more constant opinions through the congress members. Should the citizens of San Bernadino been the ones to vote on these new amendments, the result might have been much different.
     This is not to say that the Senators or Representatives are void of ardent viewpoints. These people voted into their offices are often quite passionate in their opinions as well. But the framers accounted for this, too. The diversity of our country, and subsequent diversity of our Congress, leads to a large group that balances out new measures. Our government is not in such a condition that it would be overtaken by an ideological group, such as the early Articles of Confederation might have been. So any new amendment has to obtain a substantial amount of support before any action is taken. This is a security against impulsive decisions, but also a point of contingency to those struggling to pass their proposals.
     So our living, breathing constitution will hold it's breath for a while longer, until a greater majority of congress is ready to back these new amendments.

Click here to read up on the event:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/