# How is the Trump travel ban unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675 "2017-07-07T06:05:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/41 "2017-07-11T18:59:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is she harmed? She gets the gift, tax-free. I pay the tax. Because your gift was less generous than it otherwise would have been because of the tax implications. Lets say that you had an extra $14k to give her. However, you have to pay (making this up) 25% for the gift tax. Therefore you can only give her ($14k-X) instead of the full $14k. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/42 "2017-07-11T19:43:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Because your gift was less generous than it otherwise would have been because of the tax implications. > > Lets say that you had an extra $14k to give her. However, you have to pay (making this up) 25% for the gift tax. Therefore you can only give her ($14k-X) instead of the full $14k. That’s not what I did, in order to avoid showing favoritism to one daughter-in-law over others. To each daughter-in-law I gave 10K as a wedding present. But my $10K to Fatima cost me more money. She’s not injured. She got the 10K. ---
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/43 "2017-07-11T20:06:36Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’ll give you one answer: He used the so-called “red phone” to tell them to knock the hell off. He expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in the Washington area as well as sanctioned four Russian individuals and two Russian entities. Obama did nothing only if you have quite a broad definition of nothing. But you didn’t answer his question about media coverage: > [@davida03801](#): > > The Obama administration knew of the Russian meddling in the election in 2016 while they were in power and did nothing about it. Where is all this extreme harshness in the major news outlets for this one issue ? Should be easy for you to find. If so I will re-consider my views. Meanwhile I won’t be holding my breath. And regarding your ‘one answer,’ President Obama took that action after the election. Why not be candid? President Obama didn’t take any action before the election so as not to color the inevitable Hillary win. So perhaps you should reconsider your definition of something. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/44 "2017-07-21T17:02:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not what I did, in order to avoid showing favoritism to one daughter-in-law over others. To each daughter-in-law I gave 10K as a wedding present. But my $10K to Fatima cost me more money. She’s not injured. She got the 10K. I would argue that under that scenario, your daughter in law has no injury in fact. However, someone similarly situated would indeed have such an injury whereby the law could be challenged. However, you have not been harmed by any rights that you have which the Constitution protects. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/45 "2017-07-21T18:07:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I would argue that under that scenario, your daughter in law has no injury in fact. However, someone similarly situated would indeed have such an injury whereby the law could be challenged. > > However, you have not been harmed by any rights that you have which the Constitution protects. The Constitution protects me from the government exacting a monetary penalty as to one financial transaction, but not another, based solely on the recipient’s religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/46 "2017-07-21T20:24:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Constitution protects me from the government exacting a monetary penalty as to one financial transaction, but not another, based solely on the recipient’s religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman. I’ll read it, of course (as I have already) but I don’t believe standing was at issue in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/47 "2017-07-21T20:56:32Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Right. Because Obama attacked the institution of the free press at every turn. And **restricted information access**. And blabbered during his candidacy about how he would institute a Muslim ban. And lied at every opportunity, even when it was unnecessary. And led an administration that was under investigation from Day One. And bragged about how he could literally get away with anything, from pussygrabbing to murder. > > Oh, wait. That was Trump… \*\*bolding \*\*mine Argue what you will about the other points, but the press noted that the Obama administration was definitely not transparent and particularly resisted releasing information under FOIA. So yes, Obama did restrict information access. Sharply. Washington Post: [Obama promised transparency. But his administration is one of the most secretive](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?utm_term=.ec4422d3e761) New York Times Letter to the Editor: [Less Than Transparent: Journalists Fault Obama](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/opinion/less-than-transparent-journalists-fault-obama.html) > [@](#): > > We were hoping we could point to this White House as a shining example of how it should be done. Unfortunately, we can’t do that and will have to start over with the next administration. > > We vow to the American people to keep fighting to protect their right to know what their elected officials are doing. > > PAUL FLETCHER > > President > > Society of Professional Journalists > > Indianapolis [Reason.com](http://Reason.com) : [‘The Most Transparent Administration in History’ A campaign promise becomes a punchline.](http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/18/the-most-transparent-administr) Associated Press: [Obama’s final year: US spent $36 million in records lawsuits](https://apnews.com/0b27c4d4b23b436d805328694e58c605/obamas-final-year-us-spent-36-million-records-lawsuits) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government… None of that is to argue that Trump is doing well in this regard. But Obama did NOT do well. Information secrecy and lack of transparency is one of the worst black marks on the Obama administration’s record. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/48 "2017-07-21T23:40:31Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > None of that is to argue that Trump is doing well in this regard. But Obama did NOT do well. Information secrecy and lack of transparency is one of the worst black marks on the Obama administration’s record. Which puts paid to davida03801’s absurd position that the only reason anybody criticizes Trump for being objectively awful is because he’s not the sainted Obama who nobody ever criticized ever especially republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/49 "2017-07-22T00:36:12Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > That is not the point and I suspect you know it. I used the qualifier of\*\*\* IF \*\*\*in the statement. “How come I got in trouble for trying to hack the bank’s computer? If the head of the bank’s cybersecurity tiger team did that, nobody would say boo!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/50 "2017-07-22T01:17:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’ll read it, of course (as I have already) but I don’t believe standing was at issue in that case. I quote Lemon to show that the Constitution forbids the government’s application of a financial penalty to a giver in differing ways based on the religious belief held by the recipient. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/51 "2017-07-22T02:48:19Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is a problem I have with the standing issue for the U.S. citizens involved. As you pointed out, the holding was that it was religious discrimination because as a Muslim-American, lets say, my relatives cannot come here because they are from the six countries and also Muslim. That harms me based upon religion. > > However, even if I converted to Catholicism, my relatives still are not eligible for entry. Therefore, it matter not what MY religion is, but (arguably, and least charitably to Trump) what THEIR religion is. And, as has been pointed out, immigrants do not have First Amendment rights with regard to entry. > > Hence, no standing. Other Muslim-Americans still have standing, presumably, since they might be interested in living in a country with more of their co-religionists. I’m not sure why someone has to be related to one of the immigrants in question to have standing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/52 "2017-07-22T03:26:50Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Other Muslim-Americans still have standing, presumably, since they might be interested in living in a country with more of their co-religionists. I’m not sure why someone has to be related to one of the immigrants in question to have standing. No, that’s the sort of inchoate, diffuse relationship that typically does NOT give rise to standing, any more than “I want to live in a country without guns,” gives rise to standing to challenge a gun law. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/53 "2017-07-22T14:52:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I quote Lemon to show that the Constitution forbids the government’s application of a financial penalty to a giver in differing ways based on the religious belief held by the recipient. Lemon was nearly twenty years before Lujan clarified the injury in fact test. Standing wasn’t questioned in Lemon. I agree that Lemon is a very good case for your position, but I would argue that it is inapplicable. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675/54 "2017-07-22T21:44:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, that’s the sort of inchoate, diffuse relationship that typically does NOT give rise to standing, any more than “I want to live in a country without guns,” gives rise to standing to challenge a gun law. Uh, OK. I haven’t studied law so I’ll concede you’re right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional/790675.md?page=2)