The Application and Meaning of the US Constitution
The application and meaning of the US constitution are both covered by constitutional law. It addresses the fundamental bond that individuals have with their community and, among other things, covers the laws governing religion, free speech, and assembly. The first amendment to the US constitution limited the Congress's and the president's ability to amend the aforementioned statutes. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," it read, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Miller, 2012). However, in 2015, the Presidential aspirant who is currently the president of the US proposed to shut down the mosques in the country. Now that he is the head of state assuming he gives an executive order for all the mosques to be closed there are various legal factors that will be used to justify or oppose such an act.
Trump’s Policies would Violate the First Amendment
Trump’s proposal and in case he gave an order for the mosques to be shut down would be targeting a religious institution (Braunstein, 2017). Such a move is strictly prohibited by the first amendment, which safeguards religious liberty and bans laws that would hinder free exercise of religion. Such a law is entailed in the Free Exercise Clause. Therefore, Trump’s policies would violate the first amendment. Further, the Establishment Clause also protects the right of freedom of religion. The clause has limitations placed on the United States Congress that prevents it from making legislation that relates to the establishment of religion (Malbin, 1978). The clause prohibits the government from showing preference to one religion over the other.
Trump’s executive order to shut down the mosques
would express some signs of preference to other religions except Islam. Such an act can be presumed and so it can be proved in a court of law. Even though the Establishment Clause prohibits the Congress from elevating and preferring a religion over the other it does allow the government to enter into a religious place and make accommodations that enhance religious observance and practices by observing the Free Exercise Clause (Malbin, 1978). On the other hand, the incorporation of the Establishment is criticized as being problematic in various ways. The controversy of incorporation is based on the fact that the intention of the Clause was to prevent the Congress from tampering with the establishments of religion. Therefore, the clause was made to be applicable through incorporation. The critics believe that such a law was not based on what is good for the people; it makes it difficult for various accommodations to be implemented in any religious domain. Nonetheless, as long as it is in the constitution of the country all its provisions must be respected and obeyed by everyone including the president (Miller, 2012).
The First Amendment and the United States Bill of Rights
The first amendment is included in the United States Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was proposed to be added to the constitution in 1787. Such an act was meant to limit the powers of the federal government. The government always had powers over the people and this made it open for the rights of the citizens to be abused. Therefore, the inclusion of the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights protected the people’s rights including the freedom of speech, assembly and right to worship. Therefore, Trumps order to shut down the Mosques will be a violation of the constitutional provisions and this can be challenged in the court of law (Miller, 2012).
Lawyers Perspective
It is evident that the country has encountered various challenges that people especially President Donald Trump has claimed Islam should be held responsible. The citizens have heard such theories and have divergent opinions; there are those who believe in Trump when he says the American nation has had problems with Islam and that Islam hates America. On the other hand, there are those including the legal minds including Trump’s own lawyers who feel that anything Trump says while campaigning or just addressing the rally should not be paid attention. As a lawyer, in this case, I would represent the plaintiffs who are the congregation of a Muslim mosque (Lowi & Ginsberg, 2011).
The constitutional provisions would make it easy to defend such a case. First, it will be easy to prove religious intolerance and preference. There will be religious preference since Islam seems to be the target; why not other religions. Second, it will be easy to show that such an order is in violation of the constitution; the first amendment. I would defend the plaintiff because of my principles and personal concerns. I believe every citizen should be allowed to worship freely. Donald Trump is blaming the entire Islam religion for the terrorist acts that have been experienced in the country. Such an act is not fair since there might be radical Muslims, however, the majority of the Muslims are modest who just want to continue worshipping without constraints (Lowi & Ginsberg, 2011).
In defense of my client (the Muslim congregations), I would point out how Trump’s act is an assault on the constitution. Trump himself admitted that he was not sure about the legality of closing mosques. However, the closure would result in infringement of religious freedom according to the first amendment. Therefore, such an act is incompatible with the constitution of the United States of America (MacWilliams, 2017). The freedom of religion is closely associated with the separation of church and state. Relying on past judgments of the Supreme Court where it has constantly held that the right to free exercise of religion cannot be absolute. For example, during a case in the 19th century some member of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”; a church that practiced polygamy, the court upheld the conviction of their member on the grounds that “Laws are made for the government of action, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practice” (MacWilliams, 2017).
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution guarantees the religious civil rights. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion by ensuring the equal protection of the laws for everyone. The amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Lowi & Ginsberg, 2011). Such a provision will make Trump’s act a violation of the constitution. It would be easy to defend the plaintiff since the arguments made will be backed by the constitution. On the other hand, the US government will be certainly wrong since their actions will be based on personal opinion and not the constitution.
References
Braunstein, R. (2017). Muslims as outsiders, enemies, and others: The 2016 presidential election and the politics of religious exclusion. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 5(3), 355-372.
Lowi, T. J., & Ginsberg, B. (2011). American government: Freedom and power. NY: WW Norton & Comp..
MacWilliams, M. C. (2017). Intolerant and Afraid: Authoritarians Rise to Trump’s Call. Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, 121.
Malbin, M. J. (1978). Religion and Politics: The Intentions of the Authors of the First Amendment.
Miller, N. P. (2012). The Religious Roots of the First Amendment: Dissenting Protestants and the Separation of Church and State. OUP USA.
