2016 Conventions

The wrath of Khan

Oh, the sanctimony.

Khizr Khan Esq. was doing fine at the Democrats’ convention last week until he decided to needlessly blacken Republican nominee Donald Trump’s name. (A transcript of the speech is available here.)

Khan, full of righteous indignation in the glare of the stage lights, had the high ground. People liked him. They identified with him. They felt his pain. They wanted to rally behind this father of a brave Muslim American soldier who gave his life in Iraq in 2004 to save his American brothers-in-arms.

And then he suddenly gave it all up to go for a cheap partisan smear.


In an instant Khizr Khan became just another mud-slinger gunning for Donald Trump.

His moral preening about the Constitution was obnoxious.

He implied Trump had never read the Constitution, which is rich coming from someone addressing the nation from the bowels of “living Constitution” leftism. Of course Democrats (and far too many Republicans) only revere the Constitution when doing so is in their own self-interest.

People like Khan, call them cafeteria constitutionalists, pick and choose the sections of the Constitution they think should be followed.

Khan lectured Trump saying if it had been up to him, Khan’s son “never would have been in America.” Trumps “consistently smears the character of Muslims,” “disrespects other minorities,” and “vows to build walls and ban us from this country.”

The immigration lawyer offered Trump his copy of the Constitution and challenged him to “look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.'”

The only reason to bring this up is to slam Trump for his proposed temporary ban on Muslims’ entry to the United States, a plan that over time the candidate has narrowed in scope. The proposal was brought up not to discriminate against Muslims but to temporarily protect Americans from terrorists, the overwhelming majority of which are Muslims, until a long-lasting policy solution to the problem could be found.

Temple University law professor Peter Spiro has said that the president has wide powers to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens as immigrants” if he determines their entry would “be detrimental” to the public interest. The president could probably even impose the ban without congressional approval. (“Is Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim entry unconstitutional?” by Jacob Gershman, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 8, 2015)

In other words, the Bill of Rights and the Equal Protection Clause do not apply to the question of who gets to move to the U.S. The president and U.S. Congress get to decide who gets in. And they can do whatever they want, free from the strictures of the Constitution which does not offer guidance on immigration policy.

Maybe it’s time Khizr Khan spent some time reading the Constitution.

Then there are the crazed, overwrought condemnations of Trump when he dared to defend himself from Khan’s wrath.

A topic for another day…

Matthew Vadum

The author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers (WND Books, 2011), Vadum, former senior vice president at CRC, writes and speaks widely…
+ More by Matthew Vadum