The storm caused by Trump's "Muslim Ban" in the US grew increasingly severe. Google seaʀᴄh novèlfire.net

The second hidden trigger point within this proposal was also brought to light.

This time, it wasn't orchestrated by Trump's social media team; they hadn't even had time to act before it was spontaneously discovered and "detonated" by others.

People began to focus on the "constitutionality" of this policy.

Because it sounded so blatantly "unconstitutional." Even someone with a rudimentary understanding of the US Constitution could predict that if Trump were elected and actually implemented this plan, it would inevitably be challenged.

Not only was the public buzzing about this discussion, but the US legal academia also joined the debate.

Jan C. Ting, a constitutional scholar at Temple University and former expert at the US Department of Justice's Immigration Division, believed that this ban targeting Muslim entry was not illegal.

Ting argued that the US Constitution grants the president immense power over immigration matters. He stated: "Any form of 'Entry Ban' declared by the US President is not unconstitutional. The US President can ban undesirable foreigners from entering for any reason."

Simultaneously, Ting also mentioned several past Supreme Court precedents, heavily referencing the Ching Chong Exclusion Act of the past to prove Trump's policy was lawful and proper.

When Martin saw this news, he couldn't help but call Ivanka.

"Is this person really not arranged by you guys? He's perfectly replicating the 'talking points' we discussed before."

"Absolutely not. We're also puzzled here. Probably this person genuinely supports the 'Muslim Ban' policy; it's his spontaneous action."

"Haha, that's perfect timing then, saving you a lot of trouble."

"Hehe, exactly."

Professor Ting's views gained support from several scholars.

For example, Professor Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law lecturer at UCLA School of Law, pointed out during an interview:

"Although Mr. Trump's proposed plan carries a discriminatory religious tone, based on Congress's plenary power over immigration matters, as long as the president proposes it and receives congressional support, this plan is definitely constitutional. As Professor Ting mentioned, the Supreme Court is unlikely to oppose its own precedent."

Of course, where there is support, there is opposition.

Stephen Legomsky, former Chief Counsel of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, pointed out: Congress's power to manage immigration is not without exceptions; the Supreme Court has previously limited the powers of the executive and legislative branches on issues like due process.

He further indicated that the biggest problem with Trump's plan wasn't just its "constitutionality," but more whether the president could unilaterally make such a decision.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress did not grant the president such authority. If Trump stubbornly insisted, it would undoubtedly damage congressional authority, damage the US political system of democratic separation of powers, and create a more serious constitutional crisis.

Considering the debates sparked by Obama's final executive orders on deferred action, Legomsky's concerns were not without reason.

If conservatives opposed Obama's actions, they naturally couldn't support Trump's "nonsense."

Regarding Ting's citation of the Ching Chong Exclusion Act precedent, Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell University believed that times had changed; the bill itself would unlikely pass in today's Congress, and it was doubtful whether a ruling based on that bill would receive Supreme Court support today.

Professor Nancy Morawetz of NYU Law said she simply couldn't believe anyone would advocate adding a religious test to the US entry process.

She stated: "It's noteworthy that past Supreme Court support for various immigration bans was based on nationality or race, while Trump's ban targets religious belief. I don't recall the Supreme Court having any precedent for denying entry based solely on religion."

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law School believed that for such a ban to be effective, it must receive congressional authorization, and any similar bill would almost certainly not receive Supreme Court support because this ban directly contradicts the spirit of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Former American Immigration Lawyers Association President Annalisa Yanni believed the proposed ban conflicted with many existing US diplomatic treaties.

Since there are many Muslims in North Atlantic Treaty countries and Southeast Asian countries, suddenly implementing this policy would inevitably cause diplomatic conflicts with these nations.

These two regions are also primary US ally regions, with the most complex and deep diplomatic relations with the US, and numerous bilateral agreements. The Muslim Ban could touch upon many hidden issues.

Implementing this ban would also be difficult because immigration officers often have very limited time to process each entrant; most times they only rely on passports to conduct the most basic checks on applicants.

Professor Yanni believed that no passport in the world has a "Religion" column.

Contrary to the public's rigid perception, Muslim followers are very diverse in appearance, dress, and lifestyle. Immigration officers fundamentally cannot easily judge an entrant's religious belief from their appearance.

Some scholars stepped outside the fields of immigration law and public international law, attempting to cite other constitutional clauses to argue whether the ban was unconstitutional.

Professor Richard Primus, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Michigan, pointed out that the ban did not meet the requirement of being "narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest."

Based on past Supreme Court rulings, any government law, regulation, measure, or plan must be based on a constitutional and legitimate compelling government interest, and the legislation must be very precisely applied to the group of people targeted by that interest.

But Trump's ban proposed "banning any person from a religious group with over 1 billion adherents, who are very diverse in race, nationality, and political background," from entering the US. Not only was the purpose questionable, but the target group was also extremely imprecise.

He further pointed out that although Trump's future government lawyers would defend this ban on national security grounds, that didn't mean the courts would accept their excuses, because the party challenging the ban could easily argue the ban's true motive was based on "hostility," "theology," or both, and these legislative motives are utterly unconstitutional.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe rejected Trump's ban from the perspective of rights protection.

He believed that although most rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are not automatically granted to foreigners, based on his interpretation of the Constitution, some of the most important constitutional protections, such as religious freedom and due process rights, are not subject to nationality or territory restrictions.

He analyzed the constitutional text's wording, pointing out that the Fifth Amendment requires the US government to provide due process protection to "any person," and the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Neither place imposes restrictions based on nationality or territory.

His views were supported by another University of Michigan professor, Richard Friedman, who believed Trump's ban was utterly absurd.

Facing the collective attack from legal academia, conservative media like Fox News, Limbaugh's radio show, and Breitbart extensively cited the 1980 ban on Iranian citizen entry, arguing it was very similar to Trump's ban.

However, the opposition accused conservative media of taking quotes out of context to deceive the public, because the Iranian ban targeted citizens of that country, not followers of a religion.

According to the Iranian ban, immigration officers could only investigate an applicant's religious belief when the applicant sought entry based on avoiding religious persecution, to determine if they qualified for an exception under the ban.