Agreed, for the most part.
If you're gonna have government with this kind of sweeping power, having the various branches have at each other over it is at least better than simply allowing any branch unchecked power.
Yep, I'm just kind of surprised that a federally appointed state-level judge can overturn an Executive Order, even temporarily. I assumed that would have to go to the supreme court, but I guess I was wrong about that
Well, someone has to hear it - usually a high court in a state can make the decision, and then you appeal up to a Federal court, and then appeal up to the Supreme Court, if they like, who then decides one way or the other (if they hear the case at all).
Constitution > President
Otherwise it could turn into a dictatorship rather quickly!
Barring US permanent residents and Greencard holders is uncontitutional. From what I gathered Trump/Bannon ignored advice from any branch and just made the E.O and signed it. No nuance, no legal advice just rushed it..... This was bound to happen, and i'm sure Trump is calling the judge/judges traitors or something because they turned down his clumsy work that is unconstitutional.
Yeah, that part was pretty fucked up and not well thought out or executed.
From what I gathered Trump/Bannon ignored advice from any branch and just made the E.O and signed it
I'd love some sauce for that. Gen Kelly had to be involved in that EO I would hope. That would put a rather large shit stain on DHS if the current administration just ignores DHS for security issues.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-29/rule-of-law-1-trump-s-immigration-ban-0
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38791752
To name a few. It was in almost all the media last week:
While on the campaign trail, it was easy for Mr Trump to roundly decry the US immigration system as broken and make a general call for bans and moratoriums. As president, however, his team has had to fill in the details - and it seems they faced some difficulty translating his pre-election rhetoric into policy.
Mr Trump's Friday afternoon executive order reportedly was crafted without consulting legal aides and enacted over the objection of homeland security officials, who balked at including permanent US residents in the ban.
I don't know if I buy the "unlawful" argument some people are making. See here, section "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President". The EO seems pretty damn legal to me, and there is legal precedent for this with the 2011 Iraqi refugee ban and the 2015 Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
On the flip side, it is good to see branches of the government challenge each other (I'm not counting the Democrat Senators refusing to show up for Cabinet hearings as 'challenging each other', that's just obstruction). The Executive branch can't go unchecked.