This lawyer represents the State of Hawaii in the U.S. Court of Appeals and he is stating that the collection of data with regards to honor killings as reason for the travel ban should be removed from the President’s Travel Ban because of the 1st Amendment. His argument states that the collection of such data found in Trump’s Executive Order 13780 contravenes the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”.
Just like that, Katyal is making the case that honor killings, which is murder that is committed in the name of restoring a family’s honor following discouraged behavior in homes of practicing Islamists is Islamic, therefore listing it as unacceptable is violating the 1st Amendment. Is that not one of the stupidest things you’ve heard from the left thus far?
This American lawyer is using an argument that is often made by anti-Islam campaigners, but to hear it from the lips of even a political leftist, is still very alarming. The argument he uses behind this belief, is worse.
He was asked by Judge Paez, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “What does the President have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?”
This was his reply:
“What does [the President]have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?” asked Judge Paez of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this afternoon.
Katyal responded at length, stating: “I think there’s two paths that the President could take in order to pass constitutional muster.”
“One is the way that our founders thought, Article 1 Section 8 which, as Congress in the driver’s seat with respect to immigration, passes a statute. as Justice Alito said, when Congress passes a statute it’s much less likely to discriminate. It is 535 people versus one, which is why his Mandel point is so problematic. That’s number one.
“Second thing the president could do, or the kinds of things or some of the kinds, removing some of things that the district court found led an objective observer to say that this this discriminates.
“One example would be, what Judge Hawkins said, disavowing formally all the stuff said before. But that’s not it. He could do a lot of things. For example, I’m going to throw out some examples. I‘m not trying to micro manage the President. He could say, like President Bush did, right after September 11th, the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. that’s not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. Instead, we get, quote, Islam hates us. I think Islam hates us.
“I think he could point to changed circumstances from December 2015, when Congress debated the exact same evidence that the President relies on in his executive order and say, you know, we actually need more than just denying people entry without a visa, which is what Congress required. You need to do more than that.
“It could eliminate the text, which refers to honor killings. There’s a bunch of different things that could be done. And our fundamental point to you is that presidents don’t run into Establishment Clause problems and the reason for that is this is a very limited, you know, in a really unusual case in which you have these public statements by the President. if you affirm the district court there’s not a thing that any president has done in our lifetime that would be unconstitutional”.
In order for Katyal to advance such an argument it will be detrimental to the public’s understanding of honor killings, here in the United States. The executive order mentions honor killings once, in the titled section “Transparency and Data Collection”, this is where it states:
To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information…
…(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘‘honor killings,’’ in the United States by foreign nationals…
Another terrifying argument that Katyal has mustered the audacity to use is that if President Trump should go above and beyond to fawn over Islam as one of his predecessors, President George W. Bush did in the past, then under Hawaii’s broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause, it should be found as a violation in itself. It appears that despite there being no logic involved in Katyal’s thinking, he might be able to get away with this nonsense.
Wickedness has never promoted logic.
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!