Larry Gude
Strung Out
A number of things that Mr. Trump supports or advocates or suggests violate the Constitution. His rhetoric (not just during this campaign) suggests that he has no more respect for the Constitution than most other politicians (and people in general for that matter). And his temperament suggests to me that he'd be at least as willing to disregard it in furtherance of his goals or interests as others have typically been.
That said, I'm not sure that prohibiting the immigration (or entrance) of all Muslims - assuming that was limited to those who didn't already have a legal status - would be unconstitutional. I think there are arguments for why it would be, and I haven't thought them through enough to be sure that I think they're all wrong. But for now I'm leaning toward it not being a constitutional violation - at least not in general. Particular applications of that policy might still be. Wrongheaded? Yes. Counterproductive (even assuming a good intent)? Yes. Antithetical to what America is supposed to be? Yes. To what it should be? Yes. A deplorable suggestion? Absolutely. But unconstitutional? I'm not sure about that.
Also, I don't think it would be the same as banning Japanese or Italians or Germans when it comes to the constitutional consideration. Those are nationalities, not a religion. My initial thought is that it is more likely to be constitutionally problematic than those nationality-based bans would be.
This better not be taking away from work on my tax plan.