Entertainment: Start with Succubus and play Hollywood

The turmoil caused by Trump's "Muslim ban" in the United States is getting more and more intense.

And the second small explosion point hidden in this suggestion has also been triggered.

This time it was not led by Trump's public relations team. Before they had time to do it, it was spontaneously discovered and "detonated".

People began to pay attention to the "constitutionality" of this policy.

Because it sounds too "unconstitutional", even people who have only a superficial understanding of the US Constitution can predict that once Trump is elected and really implements the plan, someone will inevitably challenge it.

Not only did the public talk about it, but even the American legal community joined the debate.

Jan C. Ting, a constitutional scholar at Temple University and former commissioner of the US Department of Justice's Immigration Bureau, believes that this entry ban on Muslims is not illegal.

Ting believes that the US Constitution gives the president great power in immigration affairs. He said: "It is not unconstitutional for the US president to issue any form of 'entry ban'. The US president can ban bad foreigners from entering the country for any reason."

At the same time, Ting also mentioned several previous cases of the US Supreme Court, and also focused on the "Chinese Exclusion Act" of that year to prove that Trump's policy is legal and compliant.

Martin couldn't help but call Ivanka after seeing the news.

"This person is really not arranged by you? He is simply a perfect 990 copy of the 'positive speech' we agreed on at the beginning."

"Absolutely not, we are also wondering here. It is estimated that this person really supports the policy of 'Muslim ban'. This is his spontaneous behavior."

"Haha, that's really a coincidence. It saves you a lot of trouble."

"Hehe, it's true."

The views of Professor Ting have won the support of many scholars.

For example, Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, pointed out in an interview:

"Although the plan proposed by Mr. Trump is something that implies religious discrimination, based on the full power of Congress in immigration affairs, as long as the president proposes it and it is supported by Congress, this plan is definitely constitutional. As Professor Ting said, the Supreme Court cannot oppose itself."

Of course, where there are supporters, there must be opponents.

Former Chief Legal Counsel of the Immigration Bureau Legomsky pointed out: Congress's power to manage immigration affairs is not without exception. The Supreme Court has partially restricted the power of the executive and legislative branches on issues such as deportation procedures.

He further pointed out that the biggest problem with Trump's plan is not just whether it is "constitutional", but whether the president can make such a decision unilaterally.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act enacted by Congress does not give the president such authorization. If Trump insists on his own way, there is no doubt thatIt will damage the authority of Congress, undermine the system of separation of powers in the American constitutional government, and cause a more serious constitutional crisis.

Combined with the controversy caused by President Obama's executive order on the suspension of deportations, Legomsky's concerns are not unreasonable.

If conservatives oppose Obama's actions, then they naturally cannot support Trump's "misbehavior."

As for the case cited by Ting on the Chinese Exclusion Act, Professor Dorf of Cornell University believes that the times are different now. The bill itself would not be passed by today's Congress, and it is also doubtful whether the precedent based on the bill will be supported by today's Supreme Court.

Morawetz, a law professor at New York University, said that she could not believe that anyone would advocate adding a religious assessment procedure to the issue of entering the United States.

She said: "It is worth noting that the various immigration bans supported by the Supreme Court in the past were based on nationality or race, while Trump's ban targets religious beliefs. I can't remember any previous cases in which the Supreme Court refused entry for religious reasons."

Yale-Loehr, a law professor at Cornell University, believes that if this ban is to take effect, it must be authorized by Congress, and any similar bill is unlikely to be supported by the Supreme Court because such bans directly conflict with the spirit of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

Yanni, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, believes that this ban conflicts with many existing diplomatic agreements of the United States.

Because there are many Muslims in NATO countries and Southeast Asian countries today, the sudden implementation of this policy will inevitably cause diplomatic conflicts with these countries.

These two regions are the regions where the main allies of the United States are located, and their diplomatic relations with the United States are the most complex and deepest. The more bilateral and multilateral agreements there are, the more potential problems the Muslim ban may touch.

This ban is also difficult to enforce, because immigration officials usually have very limited time to deal with each entrant, and most of the time they only rely on passports to conduct the most basic investigation of applicants.

Professor Yanni believes that there is no passport in the world that has a "religion" column.

And unlike the stereotyped perception of the public, Muslims are very diverse in appearance, clothing and lifestyle, and immigration officials have no way to easily judge the religious beliefs of an entrant from the appearance.

Some scholars have jumped out of the field of immigration law and international law and tried to cite other provisions of the Constitution to prove whether the ban is unconstitutional.

Professor Primus of constitutional law at the University of Michigan pointed out that the ban did not meet the requirement of "legitimate government legislative purpose".

According to previous Supreme Court rulings, any government's laws, regulations, programs, and plans must be based on constitutional, legal and legitimate legislative purposes, and the legislation must be very precisely imposed on the people targeted by the purpose.

But Trump's ban attempts to "ban"Anyone from a religious group with a population of more than one billion and a very diverse ethnic, international and political background" entering the United States is not only improper in purpose, but also very imprecise in target population.

He further pointed out that although Trump's future government lawyers will defend the ban on the grounds of national security, this does not mean that the court will accept their arguments, because the party challenging the ban can easily argue that the real motive of the ban is based on "hostility", "theology" or both, and these legislative motives are completely unconstitutional.

Harvard Law Professor Tribe refuted Trump's ban from the perspective of rights protection.

In his view, although most of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are not automatically granted to foreigners, based on his understanding of the Constitution, some of the most important constitutional protections, such as religious freedom, due process and other rights, are not restricted by nationality and region.

He analyzed the wording of the constitutional provisions and pointed out that the Fifth Amendment requires the U.S. government to provide due process protection to "anyone", while the First Amendment requires the U.S. government to provide due process protection to "anyone". The amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting ... an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." There are no restrictions on nationality or region in either place.

His view was supported by Friedman, another professor at the University of Michigan, who believed that Trump's ban was ridiculous.

Faced with the collective offensive of the legal community, conservative media such as Fox News, Limbaugh Radio and Breitbart and other online media have repeatedly cited Carter's 1980 entry ban on Iranian citizens, believing that it is very similar to Trump's ban.

But the opposing side refuted that the conservative media took the words out of context to mislead the public, because Carter's ban was aimed at citizens of this country, not at believers of a religion.

According to Carter's ban, only when the entrant attempts to make an entry request on the grounds of avoiding religious persecution, the immigration officer may investigate the applicant's religious beliefs to determine whether it meets the exceptions in the ban.

(Brothers, please protect me, please give me some comments, flowers, collections, and rewards. Thank you.).