Wow

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34873057

So...the Donald doesn't object to a database to assist monitoring Muslims. Is there a constitutional amendment that deals with this? Is it possible to be on other lists too? Could, for example, one be on the Muslim database, and the gun-owner's database, or are they mutually exclusive? Or is it unconstitutional to have a gun-owner's database? Or, given the separation of state and religion, and the constitutional safeguards for religious freedom, are other religions required to enrol their members on other databases?

The Donald brings such a refreshing set of ideas to the US presidential election. Between his wonderful ideas and Doctor Carson's perspicacity and deep thinking, the possibility of Hillary becoming the next POTUS is diminishing rapidly: almost to the point of becoming a sure-fire certainty. (If you will excuse the contradictory and pleonastic subordinate clause used for emphasis.)

Oh America: you make the rest of us so confused. Given the amateur constitutional lawyers we hear from on here from time to time, can this be constitutional when gun control isn't? And if so, how? And if not, why aren't these same amateur constitutional lawyers up in arms about the Donald's idea?

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Imagine, a forensic cross-reference between the "Muslim database" and the "Wants infidels dead database". Finding the bad guys would be just within a click's reach, hey!

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I keep on forgetting who the bad guys are atm.

Remind me please. Please.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The Truth(TM) will set you free. Only, I forgot what the Truth was.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Well, it was the Donald who said the world was a safer place with Saddam and Gaddafi in it, and openly admired Putin for the great leader he is. Like sniffs alike from afar, you know.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

However, even Vladimir, for all of his other sins, hasn't gone as far as putting folk on a list because of their religion.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

He's quite the stinker this one, isn't he.

I hope he gets elected president. If only for the shits'n'giggles. It's not like it really matters who's president anyway.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I once thought that, and then htpcl reminded me en passant that under Clinton, Blair was still a good guy, but under Bush, he became a war criminal.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Just makes you wonder what Cameron would change into under Trump. Him currently being just an average wanker doesn't seem likely to remain the case under those new circumstances.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

It is a worry.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I really like your rhetorical questions. ;)

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

But they still require answers. :(

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You've already, ehm... asked the answers.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Ah...but there are experts on the constitution out there who can refute the questions.

And I really need to hear from them.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I'd assume this list already exist. I assume plenty of lists like it exist. Hell, I bet we're on a list - at least one.

I don't think we can make it official though.

'Not ruling it out' is a pretty smart move, but I'd still love to hear the speech...

"I make the best lists. I'll make the most incredible Muslim list ever. Everyone knows I make the greatest databases. Did you see the new poll that just came out? Muslims love me. 96.4% of them."

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I'm on a few lists, I guess. I'm rather hoping they are all lists I'd be proud to be on.

If Roops has a list of folk anti his media empire, I'd hope I was on that one, even if only in a minor way. And I'm pretty sure the Security Forces in the UK know about me...I'm chums with a couple of their folk, despite our differences. But I've taken the trouble to knowingly put myself between their cross-hairs.

However, the US has a celebrated constitution which guarantees freedom of religion, without state interference. It isn't like Blighty in that respect.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Making a list of people in a religion wouldn't be prohibiting them from exercising that religion.

The respecting part - well, if we assume the founders meant that as in the government not being able to single out a religion - this would be what you're looking for that would keep the list from being made. But they could make a list for every religion, or put a religion question on the census - to get around that. Politicians will find a way.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

It would probably be seen as discriminatory and frowned upon. Also, I doubt the US government could put together such a list accurately by themselves. If they really want this kind of info, they should nationalize Facebook, Google, or some other company that probably already has this information. It'd probably be cheaper.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

"Nationalise"?
That really is socialism. Or something.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Yep, if we're going to copy Soviet civil liberties, might as well copy their economic policy.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

So too making a list of gun-owners doesn't prevent them owning guns...and actually may contribute to a well-ordered militia. But somehow that seems a different thing.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

I'm curious, if I follow these instructions (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/joke_thatll_get_1.html) and open this (http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf) at a public place, how many lists would I suddenly find myself on? ;-)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

That was actually pretty spot on:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So this is the conservative definition of cultural and religious freedom. I'm glad someone who can't even make a casino run well is educating us in it.