Quote:That is great and all, but quote me in the constitution where pausing Islamic immigration is unconstitutional. Even the NYTimes begrudgingly admits it is constitutional. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinio...ional.html). Saying it should be unconstitutional means absolutely nothing.

 

Now, the burden of proof is on you. Pay up, por favor.

 

And here the Wall Street Journal using the exact same argument and reaching a conclusion that is basically "We're not sure". 

 

And I read the NYT article before you posted it and you seem to ignore this passage:  "But here’s the interesting thing: Just because Mr. Trump’s proposal has a judicial pedigree, that doesn’t make it “constitutional” in a broader sense. "

 

The article is very clear on the point that the jurisprudence on this old (1880's) and hasn't been updated for modern times. So like I said; it's constitutional by the most facile of arguments. 

---