Is Trump’s Muslim Ban Actually Constitutional? The Answer Will SHOCK You

To the delight of the ten or twenty devoted viewers of MSNBC, and the disgust of the vast majority of normal Americans, various pretend “news” organizations erupted in a full-blown frenzy over Donald Trump’s call to use the U.S. military to round up Muslims worldwide, including those present in the United States, and imprison them in concentration camps indefinitely without trial. Not really! What he actually proposed was “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Who is this maniac Trump, proposing this despicable idea, that we know who we are letting into our country? Hitler? Pol Pot? That dentist who shot Cecil the Lion? No, he’s a smart guy with a lot of common sense, who, like most of us, realizes that if jihadist bride Tashfeen Malik can enter this country, despite lying on her visa application and having a history of association with a radical mosque in Pakistan, and with her American-citizen husband, murder fourteen innocents at an office Christmas party, something ain’t right.

Unfortunately, in Obama’s America, political correctness trumps (no pun intended) common sense, so we find ourselves having to endure insufferable stupidity from the political and pundit class, allegedly the smartest people among us, who have demonstrated that they are not only not smart, but are also COMPLETELY disconnected from reality. These pinheads are the reason that my work is never done. Here’s a reality check for you, Dullards. Pay attention while I educate you.

First, let’s examine the assertion that Trump’s idea is “unconstitutional,” something that experts from Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe to well-known Constitutional scholar/air-headed, bleach blonde bimbo Meghan McCain, appearing on Fox Business Channel on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, have been saying for the last 48 hours. How can I put this tactfully? You people don’t have a clue what you are talking about! You cite the First Amendment’s ban on an establishment of religion, or the Article VI ban “religious tests,” but those things have NOTHING to do with admission to the United States. The latter applies to office holders, and the former restricts Congress from creating a state religion like the one they have in Great Britain. Neither of those restrictions have anything to do with aliens.

Some of you mention the Due Process Clause, pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, but that doesn’t work either. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that when it comes to the decision about which aliens to allow to legally enter the country, “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950). The Court in Knauff, also stated:

An alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides.


[T]he decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer…. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.

The decision reaffirmed previous decisions essentially stating the same thing. (See  Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892)

So when it comes to aliens seeking entry to the United States, “due process” is whatever our government says it is. The protections of the Constitution apply to people under the jurisdiction of the United States, which aliens are not. It’s called “plenary power.” Google it.

Just curious, have any of you legal scholars heard of 8 U.S. Code § 1182, a statute that provides:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Whoa—is that unconstitutional? Perhaps we should ask Meghan McCain.

Second, we have the mush-headed, emotionally-driven fools and spineless political weasels who refer to Mr. Trump as at best “irresponsible,” and at worst “unhinged” for stating the obvious. The former, mostly media types concerned about missing invitations to the important Georgetown and Manhattan cocktail parties, have rushed to their microphones to hysterically reject any suggestion that Islam is anything but the “religion of peace.”  Trump’s statements are “dangerous,” and undermine “the foundation of America itself,” Tom Brokaw solemnly stated on NBC on Tuesday, December 8, 2015. Mr. Trump’s statements are an ISIS “recruiting tool,” they say. (You know, like Gitmo. Never mind that when Islamist maniacs murdered nearly 3000 Americans on 9/11/01, the idea of holding “enemy combatants” at Gitmo wasn’t on anyone’s radar screen.)This from a “journalist” who admitted the weekend before the 2008 presidential election that he knew virtually nothing about Barack Obama, other than of course, the fact that he had a raging man-crush on him.

The latter group, terrified to the point of nearly wetting themselves contemplating being called “Islamophobic,” rush to the microphones to denounce Donald Trump and declare him unfit to even run for, no less hold, the office of President of the United States. (Yes, I’m looking at you Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton.) Left unexplained is why it is bad policy to actually figure out how it is that a woman who was obviously a jihadist plant, masquerading as a “soft-spoken, typical housewife” could enter this country and participate in a bloody massacre in San Bernardino, California.

The Republican establishment, the Democrat party and the Jurassic media are piling on Donald Trump for the simple act of telling the truth. Despite that fact, he appears to understand what Andrew Jackson meant when he said “one man and the truth is a majority.”

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, the flagship show of the Informed America Radio network,  The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in vivid red, white and blue, Sundays 5-7 pm Eastern time (4-6 pm Central) at and, and anytime on demand on iHeart Radio, Stitcher Radio, and iTunes.

Image: From Gage Skidmore courtesy of:

Share if you want to educate people about what the Constitution really says

About the author: Teri O'Brien

Teri O'Brien is America's Original Conservative Warrior Princess, and host of The Teri O'Brien Show, which debuted on Chicago's radio home for Rush Limbaugh, and now airs in the cutting edge world of online media, She is a yoga-practicing, 2nd Amendment-loving, bench pressing Mac girl geek, attorney, provocateur, author, and dangerous thinker. Teri is also the author of the new ebook, The ABC's of Barack Obama: Understanding God's Gift to America. Learn more at

View all articles by Teri O'Brien

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily