Hawaii Lawyer Says Travel Ban Could Be Constitutional if Issued by Different President

Hawaii Lawyer Says Travel Ban Could Be Constitutional if Issued by Different President

How ridiculous is this? The executive order on extreme vetting would not be an issue and would in fact be Constitutional provided the executor of the order were anyone but President Donald J. Trump.

 

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:

way, which is what I wanted —
>> Although statements, postelection statements, even the one you just read. Does that mean the president is forever barred from issuing an executive order along these lines — what does he have to do to issue an executive order than in more of you, my pass constitutional lines?>> Not at all. There’s too passed the president could take to pass constitutional muster. One is the way our founders thought — saw article one section eight which is Congress
— they would respect immigration — as justice Alito said, when Congress passes a statute, it’s much less likely to discriminate against 535 people versus one which is why the bendel point is problematic. The second thing we can do — the president to do some of the kinds of things, remove the things the district court found lead an objective observer to say that this discriminates. One example would be what judge Hawkins said about disavowing formally all of this stuff before. But that’s not it. He could do a lot of things. I will just out examples, not trying to micromanage the president, but he could say, like President Bush did right after September 11, they said terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. Instead we get Islam hates us. He could point to changed circumstances from December 2015 when Congress debated the exact same evidence that the president relies on in his executive order and say, we need more than just denying people entry without a Visa, which is what Congress required grade you need to do more than that. Because a limited attacks which were first to honor killings. There’s a bunch of different things that could be done. Our fundamental point is presidents, under — the presidents don’t run into establishment clause problems. This is a limited, unusual case in which you have public statements by the president — if you affirm the district court there’s not a thing that any president has done in our lifetime that would be unconstitutional.>> One of the judges in the fourth circuit asked, suppose it would be another individual that settled these things, what a pass constitutional muster?

>> If you don’t sail the things you never wind up with an executive order like this which is when the president has done that. But I’ll take a hypothetical. If that arose, I think it would be different. Context matters. This recording macquarie says, governments can close sought — chops on Sundays. If they do it because the labor, they want to get workers a rest, that’s fine. But if they do it and announce the reason why am doing it is to help churches, that’s obviously a problem. That’s why context always matters. Here, the history is overwhelming. That’s why this is so unique. It’s not something that will hamstring any presidents from anything that is happened in our lifetimes. This is an unusual circumstance in which you have all these different statements.

>> You argued the statutory

Facebook Comments

You may also like

USAA Drops Hannity in Response to Soros-Brock Boycott

USAA is a financial service company for the military community