Can Sharia Law And The Constitution Co-Exist?

After the terrors in Paris, Bill Whittle asks if we should just listen to our President and accept Islam as a progressive path for America… Can Sharia Law and The Constitution coexist?

The Lexington Libertarian stands solidly behind not admitting any population of immigrants or refugees who are not willing to assimilate into American culture. You cannot have  a country within a country. Those that come here need to adopt American ways, American laws, the English language and support the Constitution of the United States..

Failure to do that is what multiculturalism is all about. Two different cultures cannot exist side by side in the same territory. They will constantly clash until one culture overtakes the other. The only acceptable way for foreigners to enter the United States is to assimilate into our culture and give up theirs. Now that does not mean that they cannot retain some of the old world habits and traditions. But they must add these old ways into the new ways that is America. And they must operate under the Constitution of the United States only.

That means that Sharia law is unconstitutional and forbidden.

Rush has a lot to say on the subject:

The argument raging is what to do with these refugees.  And the left just seems as eager as they can be, in utter defiance of common sense.  They say it is the maximum expression of the American experiment.  And what do they say the American experiment is?  “The American experiment is the only experiment…” This is the way they describe the founding of the country, by the way.  As it suits their purposes. “Here we have this lone experiment in the world of human freedom — and, as such, we must be open to one and all, we must be tolerant of everything.  Otherwise we are not being true to who we are. We are not being true to our values.”

This is what Obama means, by the way.  This is my opinion.  I’m not quoting leftists here.  When you hear Obama… Obama constantly refers to, “This is not who we are.  This is not what America is.” He is using the same definitions that these leftist intellectuals are hyping, that this is an experiment. It’s an ongoing experiment.  America’s an ongoing experiment.  And the results are not in yet!  We are still in the test phase, and we are being really tested now.

And we’re not America if we don’t let anybody in who wants to come in, whether they’re coming from the southern border, whether they are terrorists or whether they are just poor, whether they’re uneducated. It doesn’t matter.  America means, “If you’re oppressed — if you’re starving, if you’re thirsty anywhere in the world — you can come here. That’s what America is.  And any limits on that are not who we are.  Any limits on that violate this great American experiment of freedom.”

Now, that is one of the most half-baked explanations and definitions of America I’ve ever heard.  It is totally absent any concern for American sovereignty.  It is totally absent any concern of American national security.  And the reason it is, is because, remember, undergirding this whole experiment thinking of theirs is that we are owed a lot of payback, folks.  I’ve played the sound bites for you today.  I played those sound bites to prove to you who these people are. I’m being truthful.  This is who they are.  This is what they think.

The sound bites I played today from two prominent libs prove it.  We’re guilty.  And so when there are refugees all over the world — Syrian refugees, it just happens to be.  You know, Bernie Sanders says it’s because of climate change. It’s hot where these people live and they’re trying to escape to at least where there’s some ice to put in their water.  They’re just boiling out there, and climate change is making them move north.  And we must accept them.  The fact that there are Syrian refugees because of the turmoil in the Middle East is of secondary importance, or maybe doesn’t even rank that high.

They’re just people in need. They’re suffering, they’re starving, and America welcomes all, whether we could afford it or not.  Really this is a smokescreen for the fact that they don’t like the way America was founded.  They don’t like that America is predominantly Judeo-Christian.  They don’t like that America’s predominantly a Western civilization country. And that’s what they’re trying to tear down.  And they’re tearing it down by allowing all of these people to emigrate and migrate and come as refugees, who have no interest in becoming Americans, who have no interest in assimilating. 

And why would they?

We’re guilty as sin!

Why would they want to become what we are when we torture, we rape, we murder, we overthrow democratically elected Middle Eastern regimes.  We have CIA black sites!  We spy on our citizens.  Why in the world would they want to come here and become part of that?  That’s understandable they would want to come here and not become part of that.  They want these refugees and these illegal immigrants to come here because that’s part of the plan to water down and dilute what America is all about.

So in the midst of this, a bunch of governors are saying, “We don’t want these refugees.  We don’t want them on our states.” The leftist intellectuals and the president, media stand up and say, “Well, it’s not for you to decide.  You don’t have to the right to decide! The federal government has total say-so over who gets into the country, who is a citizen and who isn’t, and how they get here.  You governors have nothing to say about it.”

Andy McCarthy has a piece at National Review some months ago about this, and he quotes an opinion from the Supreme Court by Antonin Scalia, the related way of thinking.  Scalia says, imagine yourself back at the time they are negotiating the country, trying to convince all the colonies to become part of the United States and ratifying the Constitution. If you tell these states that they’re not gonna have any say-so over who lives in their states, you think they’re gonna sign up for this country?

They’re gonna make fast tracks for the exits at the Constitution hall and they’re gonna be out of there.  There is no way, Scalia writes, that this would ever, ever have been part of the founding of this country, that the governors, that the states have no say so. You people have forgotten, when this country was formed, the federal government ranked lowest on the totem pole.  The states were supreme.  The founders of this country were scared to death of centralized government.

They had spent their lives fighting it, escaping it, and establishing a new country that deemphasized the federal government and promoted individual liberty and freedom and states and state sovereignty.  It’s the concept called federalism.  Now we’ve gotten to the point where everybody seems to want to anoint and empower the federal government power over everything, particularly when a Democrat president is in office.  So the Reuters story: “Obama, Congress Heading for Budget Showdown over Syrian Refugees

“Some US Republicans sought to use a must-pass spending bill on Monday to block President Barack Obama’s plan to accept thousands of Syrian refugees, saying the Paris attacks had proven they pose too much of a threat to the United States.  Republican Representative Brian Babin circulated a letter asking that lawmakers include a provision in the spending bill to defund the plan to admit 10,000 Syrians this year.  ‘The terrorist attack in Paris by militant Islamists is a loud clanging alarm bell to Congress and the American people warning us why we must block Obama’s reckless and foolish plan,’ Babin said.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan just this morning said they’re working on legislation that would create a pause in all of this.  But all Obama has to do… I fear all Obama has to is threaten to veto this spending bill to which they’re attaching the limit on Syrian refugees — all he’s gotta do is threaten to veto it, which will shut down the government — and the Republicans will give in.  Well, they have up to now. Whenever anything… Whenever a presidential veto in a spending bill might result in a shutdown of the government, who caves?

But back to the constitutionality of this.  I mentioned Andy McCarthy earlier, who has written extensively on this.  Well, first let me set it up with a couple of more news stories that would help make this make sense.  LA Times: “Momentum Builds Among States to Reject Syrian Refugees After Paris Attacks.”  They go on to describe how Islamophobic the Republicans are and how racist this is and how un-American this is, to limit these dire people in need who are suffering and starving. And, “Who the hell do we think we are to tell them they have no refuge here?  Who do we think we are? Who do these Republicans think they are?”

And then a number of intellectuals are cited, think-tank specialists, in which it is said that the states have no say-so over this.  If Obama wants these refugees in and the federal government wants them in, the states have to take them.  And then there’s a CNN story: “Authority over admitting refugees to the country, though, rests with the federal government — not with the states — though individual states can make the acceptance process much more difficult, experts said. American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck put it this way: ‘Legally, states have no authority to do anything because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government.'”

He’s wrong.

“But Vladeck noted that without the state’s participation, the federal government would have a much more arduous task.” Well, why?  Wait a minute, now, Mr. Vladeck, Professor Vladeck. If the states have no say-so and Obama can say, “(Raspberry) you!” and bring in these refugees no matter what the governors want, then why is it “more arduous” if the governors have no power, if the governors can’t say no?  You want to hear the truth, as interpreted by constitutional scholar Andrew McCarthy?

“[N]owhere in the Constitution was the national government vested with an enumerated power,” meaning spelled out, “over immigration enforcement.” Let me read that to you again: “[N]owhere in the Constitution was the national government vested with an enumerated power,” a specific power, “over immigration enforcement. Congress was empowered only to set the terms for naturalization — to determine who qualifies for American citizenship.

“The police power, the power to enforce laws within their respective territories, was left to the states — left to the representative governments closest to the people whose lives, liberties, and property were most affected by the manner of enforcement.” This is exactly the way the country was founded.  The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to avoid vesting all of this power in the federal government.  They didn’t trust it.  The first 10 amendments to the Constitution limit the federal government.  Folks, if I may…

Congress was empowered to set the terms for naturalization, to determine who qualifies for American citizenship.  The police power to enforce the laws within their respective territories was left to the states, to the governors.  If they don’t want these people here, there’s a clear argument they do not have to accept them.  And the federal government can’t make them.  Except, we live in a world where everybody thinks the federal government is all powerful and infallible and you have no choice but than to bend over and take it, and it’s simply not the case.

And here’s a dirty little secret about the Syrian refugees. Do you know what the voting tendencies of Muslim-Americans is?  Would you believe me if I told you that the statistics are that 80% of believers in Islam vote Democrat?  You’d believe it?  Okay, so would it make sense to you knowing that, that all of these Democrats can’t wait for all of these Syrian Muslim refugees to settle in America?  We’re not talking about going through citizenship.  We’re talking about granting them refugee status.  So you couple that with illegal immigration and the voting characteristics of that group of people demographical, and you can see that all of this is about the furtherance of the Democrat Party agenda and to hell with whatever it means to the country at large.

By the way, if the United States is such a flawed place as the leftists have said — we’ve their sound bites today: So much racism and so much bigotry and so much torture and so many violations of human rights and civil rights — why the hell do these refugees want to come here in the first place?  If this place is so rotten — and I’m just repeating the words of the founder and this author that was on Charlie Rose last night. I mean, we’re guilty of terrorism. We torture. Abu Ghraib. We take pictures of them while we’re torturing them, and we abuse them, and we violate human rights and civil rights and homophobic and so forth.

Why do these refugees want to come to this horrible, reprobate place?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s