Here’s the Trump announcement, in its entirety:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”

No Muslim tourists either: “Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said Trump’s proposed ban would apply to ‘everybody,’ including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country.”

U.S. citizens who are Muslim who are outside the country would not be permitted to return under Trump’s proposal, at least according to his spokeswoman:

Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a “total and complete shutdown” of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.” Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’ “

Trump appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s program last night, defending his proposal, and adding, “I have Muslim friends, they’re wonderful people.”

Greta asked whether this policy would apply to his Muslim friends.

“This does not apply to people living in the country,” Trump said, appearing to contradict his spokeswoman, “except that we have to be vigilant, but when you have people putting bombs, having pipe bombs all over their apartment, and other people see this and they don’t report them, there’s something wrong.”

Regarding Muslim U.S. servicemen who are currently deployed overseas, Trump said, “They would come home.” It appears he means they would be allowed to return, but perhaps he means they would be recalled from overseas duties. It’s hard to tell with Trump’s vague, stream-of-consciousness circular-half-sentences.

Let’s go to the Constitution, starting with Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Last night I learned there are self-described constitutional conservatives who believe that the Founding Fathers who explicitly wrote there could not be a religious test for any office would be hunky-dory with one for citizenship or entry into the country.

Then let’s turn to the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How is declaring “we will no longer allow immigration, entry, or return of U.S. citizens of a particular religious faith” not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

Wait, there’s more; last night Donald Trump talked about “closing the Internet in some way,” explicitly dismissing concerns about freedom of speech.

“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet. And we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

Trumpies, your man has no idea what he is talking about. Bill Gates does not “really understand what’s happening,” Microsoft does not control the Internet, we do not need the U.S. government to be ‘closing that Internet up in some way’ and it is not foolish to be concerned about freedom of speech.

Last night, Trump’s New Hampshire co-chairman defended the proposal, citing Internment camps: State Representative Al Baldasaro said, “What he’s saying is no different than the situation during World War II, when we put the Japanese in camps.”

Asked about whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Trump told Time:

“I would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a proper answer,” he said during a recent interview in his office in New York City. “I certainly hate the concept of it. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.”

Trump added that he believes wartime sometimes requires difficult choices. “It’s a tough thing. It’s tough,” he said. “But you know war is tough. And winning is tough. We don’t win anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We’re not a strong country anymore. We’re just so off.”

In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3, in the case of Korematsu vs. the United States that the internment of the Japanese was constitutional. (The lone Republican nominee dissented.) Years later, the American public learned vital details that had been withheld from the Court:

By the time the cases of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report, from the Office of Naval Intelligence, found that only a small percentage of Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most dangerous were already known or in custody. But the Solicitor General did not inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice attorneys that failing to alert the Court “might approximate the suppression of evidence.” Instead, he argued that it was impossible to segregate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones. Nor did he inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the West Coast, had been discredited by the FBI and FCC. And to make matters worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such as that they were disloyal and motivated by “racial solidarity.”

The Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s and Korematsu’s convictions. And it took nearly a half century for courts to overturn these decisions. One court decision in the 1980s that did so highlighted the role played by the Solicitor General, emphasizing that the Supreme Court gave “special credence” to the Solicitor General’s representations. The court thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way had the Solicitor General exhibited complete candor. Yet those decisions still stand today as a reminder of the mistakes of that era.

Korematsu vs. the United States was wrongly decided. The wholesale imprisonment of American citizens because of their ethnic heritage violates the Constitution. If you believe that someone doesn’t have the same civil and Constitutional rights as you do because of their ethnic heritage or religious beliefs . . . what word fits that description?

Banning the immigration of those who belong to a particular religion, perhaps barring U.S. citizens abroad from returning to their own country, “closing that Internet up in some way” . . . let me guess, we’re going to destroy the Constitution in order to save the country?

Here’s that noted softie, former vice president Dick Cheney:

Well, I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from. A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they were Puritans. There wasn’t anybody here then when they came, but it’s a mistaken notion. It’s a serious problem, this refugee problem is.

It’s a serious problem to make certain that the people coming in don’t represent ISIS. You’ve got to set up a vetting process. And that’s crucial, but I think the way you’ve got to begin to deal with that problem is to go back and look at why they’re here. And they’re here because of what’s going on in the Middle East. And what’s going on in the Middle East is the result of a U.S. vacuum. It’s the result of the rise of ISIS, civil war in Syria. I’ve heard proposals that I think make sense that we ought to establish safety zones, if you will, in the northern part of Syria where you’ve got them secured, you’ve got sufficient forces, hopefully of locals that would be there to protect, the area, but that’s where people who are fleeing the terrible tragedy that’s going on inside the caliphate, a place where they could reside. But it also takes the pressure, then, off of the refugee flow, the move to Europe of thousands of refugees and the move here to the United States. I think that makes a lot more sense than what’s happening now.

ADDENDA: Twelve hours ago, I asked my Twitter followers, “Are Muslims enemies of the United States of America?” So far, with 790 responses, 36 percent say “yes,” 64 percent say “no.”

I think tomorrow I’ll write about something cheerier, like the final episodes of The Man in the High Castle.