Search This Blog

Thursday, March 16, 2017

The Ruling on the Executive Order Banning Entry From Certain Countries -- UPDATE

Yesterday, I wrote about the decision of the federal judge in Hawaii on President Trump's order temporarily banning entry of people from six countries that have major problems with terrorism.  Today, I need to update that discussion to make two additional points.

First, a friend of mine pointed out that the decision doesn't really look at the words of the Executive Order; instead, it relies on things said during the campaign.  He correctly points out that the law cannot be that the constitutionality of an Executive Order or Statute depends on what one candidate said at one point in a prior political campaign.  The law is clear that a court needs to look at the words of the Executive Order or statute under consideration.  The judge in Hawaii did not do this.

Second, Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor pointed out also that under the court's reasoning, the exact Executive Order would be constitutional if it had been issued by president Obama since Obama never said anything about banning Muslims.  It cannot be that the constitutionality of an order is dependent on which president issued it.

The decision by the judge in Hawaii is not just bad; it is ridiculously bad.

No comments: