|
|
Cedric Richmond on Principles & Values |
Congressional Summary: Notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, an alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of the alien's religion or lack of religious beliefs.
Argument Opposed: [Countable.us]: "The U.S. should reserve the right to ban immigrants based on religion. The government may need to enact such a ban in response to a future acts of terror, which could save American lives."
Argument In Favor: [Cato Institute, Dec. 8, 2016]: Donald Trump proposed prohibiting all Muslim immigration; then specified "suspending immigration from nations tied to Islamic terror." He said, "People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East," but that he would "stop that dead, cold flat," during his first day in office. However, under current law, it is illegal to discriminate against immigrants based on their national origin. For almost a decade, Congress debated creating an immigration system free from discrimination by nationality, country of birth, or country of residence. President-elect Trump, however, now proposes to discriminate unlawfully against certain foreign nationals on the basis of the same protected grounds without any legislation from Congress.
Excerpts from Letter from 17 Senators to Trump Organization: The Trump Organization's continuing financial relationship with President Trump raises concerns about whether it is a pass-through for income that violates the Constitution's two Emoluments Clauses: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 on foreign Emoluments; and Article II, Clause 7 on domestic Emoluments. Please answer the following questions to help Congress understand:
Legal Analysis: (Cato Institute, "Emoluments Clause vs. Trump Empire," 11/29/16): The wording of the Emoluments clause points one way to resolution: Congress can give consent, as it did in the early years of the Republic to presents received by Ben Franklin. It can decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts. If it misjudges public opinion, it will pay a political price at the next election.
FOIA argument: (ACLU Center for Democracy, "FOIA Request," 1/19/17): We filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump's conflicts of interest relating to his business connections. When Trump took the oath of office, he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family's business interests comply with the Constitution. Some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Emoluments Clause.
The Framers were careful students of history and knew that threats to democracy could take many forms. Therefore, they adopted a standard for impeachment that captured a range of misconduct: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." A clear theme unified these constitutional wrongs: officials who abused, abandoned, or sought personal benefit from their public trust--and who threatened the rule of law if left in power--faced impeachment and removal. The Framers principally intended "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to include three forms of Presidential wrongdoing: (1) abuse of power, (2) betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements, and (3) corruption of office and elections. Any one of these violations of the public trust justifies impeachment. When combined in a single course of conduct, as is the case here, they state a powerful case for impeachment and removal from office.