| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Mercer: Of Course The President's Ban Is Constitutional |
| 2017-01-30 |
| [Barley a Blog] Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. --The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section, 212(f). President Donald Trump’s moratorium on the entry of all refugees into the United States, and "an order for ’extreme vetting’ as a condition for entry for some foreign citizens," is constitutional. This is old hat; discussed, too, in my book, "The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed." (June, 2016). No fan of the executive order, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says he disagrees with his "colleagues at George Washington University Law School and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional": ...Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump. First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written. (Trump’s comments that he wants to prioritize Christians could raise more compelling arguments of religious discrimination). |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #1 acting US att gen says ban is not even defensible (but didn't say why or say which specific parts are not defensible) |
| Posted by: lord garth 2017-01-30 19:34 |