Tags: Homeland Security | Immigration | Donald Trump

Who Has Constitutional Rights? Trump Raises the Question

By
Tuesday, 15 December 2015 01:06 PM Current | Bio | Archive

Donald Trump’s suggestion to exclude Muslims from the U.S. has been called unconstitutional as well as offensive to many.

Elected officials swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But do they know what is in it?

One thing that is not in it is the poem by Emma Lazarus, which is on the Statue of Liberty.

Nothing in the law of the land requires the U.S. to freely admit “the wretched refuse of your teeming shores” — or requires U.S. citizens to feed and provide housing and medical care for them.

The load could crush our system, starting with the medical system.

Our medical facilities are already overstretched. A few days ago, at “Southern Arizona’s leading provider of emergency care,” a 32-year-old man complaining of a “10-out-of-10” level of pain in his leg lay on the floor of the emergency room for more than seven hours before leaving without being seen.


He was eventually admitted to another hospital’s ICU with sepsis (“blood poisoning”), and died 5 days later.

A security guard brought him a blanket, but evidently no one checked for fever or even looked at his leg.

This ER is in the “Tucson sector,” where illegal border-crossing is very heavy. It is required to treat all comers, whether they pay or not, under the federal EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) law.

Where does the U.S. Constitution require people who have not been convicted of a crime to work without being paid (isn’t that involuntary servitude?) or to have part of their earnings taken to support others?

According to the American College of Emergency Physicians, hundreds of emergency departments across America have closed because of uncompensated care.

The ER you use might be the next to fold.

Terrorism could also bring down the medical system. The attack in San Bernardino targeted public health department workers, and the pipe bombs placed by terrorists were evidently intended to kill first responders.

This time, the remote detonator failed. A fully successful attack might have overwhelmed area hospitals with casualties, while killing a large fraction of emergency and public health workers.

Yet another health threat brought by swarms of refugees is emerging in Europe: diseases not seen there for 20 to 25 years.

Dr. Jan-Thorsten Gräsner, director of Germany’s Institute for Rescue and Emergency Medicine, said approximately five percent of the recent influx of asylum seekers — about 75,000 newcomers — are bringing resistant germs with them.

The latest and worst are resistant to all antibiotics, including colistin, the last resort for resistant infections.

If these organisms are not contained, simple wounds and common infections could once again be fatal, as in the pre-antibiotic era.

The Constitution does not protect disease carriers against restraints on their freedom of movement, whether they are citizens or not.

Legal immigrants were tested and quarantined for a time at Ellis Island.

Also, the Constitution has never been held to protect those who advocate or plot the violent overthrow of the government (and thus of itself).

Our Founders were neither insane nor suicidal.

Even the First Amendment doesn’t protect all speech — no one has a Constitutional right to advocate setting fire to that crowded theater, to support cop-killing, or to incite riots —not even for a religious motive.

But what about banning entry to adherents of one faith, only some of whom advocate and practice violence? Jimmy Carter, we recall, banned all Iranians.

Why not at least ban entrants from countries that sponsor terrorists, which are, it happens, predominantly Muslim? (Obama, remember, is denying asylum to persecuted Christians from those countries.)

Once people are in the country, is it Constitutional to restrict the practice of their “religion”?

Does that include actions that take lives or harm health, such as female genital mutilation, pedophilia, torturing and killing “infidels” and “apostates,” and raping or enslaving Christian women?

Or the insistence that Sharia law, which either demands or tolerates such practices, overrides the Constitution?

The Constitution is meant to protect the rights of people (including women) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If such rights are non-Islamic, how can the Constitution protect Islam?

Jane M. Orient, M.D. is executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. She also is president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, and is the editor of AAPS News, the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter, and Civil Defense Perspectives. She is the managing editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. She also is the author of "Your Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Healthcare." For more on Dr. Orient, Go Here Now.





 

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
JaneOrient
Elected officials swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But do they know what is in it?
Homeland Security, Immigration, Donald Trump
769
2015-06-15
Tuesday, 15 December 2015 01:06 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved