Hey! I saw one of your posts on the travel ban and I was wondering if you could perhaps send me some (relatively) unbiased sources that describe the travel ban situation in terms of how it is unconstitutional (and what parts it violates) and how the executives are ignoring the judicial branch, as well as what parts of the judicial branch have come out against it. I am compiling sources for facebook debates with conservatives and for letters to Congressmen. Thanks!
Oh man, Iāve read so many articles about this over the past week that I canāt keep them all straight and Iām not sure I can track them all down again...
Hereās a roundup of all the ongoing litigation over the travel banAnd a Wikipedia roundup with more explanation
There's a dizzying variety of arguments to make, since the order is so shoddily-drafted and generally awful that it presents, as one blogger put it,Ā āa target-rich environment for litigation.ā Youāve got your arguments that itās unlawful: executive orders canāt override legislation passed by Congress, and this one may run afoul of theĀ āsubstantial burden on religious exerciseā prohibition in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the immigration reforms that abolished national-origin discrimination. Then youāve got your arguments that itās unconstitutional, which, take your pick: the establishment clause and probably the free-exercise clauseĀ of the 1st Amendment, the due process guarantees of the 5th Amendment, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment... on top of that, thereās the way it was carried out, especially CBPās defiance of court orders. Today the state of Virginia filed a motion to have CBP held in contempt. For more sources, all of those articles should be chock-a-block full of links.
If youāre looking for food for thought for conservatives, Lawfare just posted this, co-authored by Benjamin Wittes and by Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA: The Special Obligation of the Advocates of Strong National Security Measures. Wittesā original passionate condemnationĀ of the order is also worth a read.
(In general, itās moderately heartening to see the national-security contingent come out so strongly against this order, as both a practical and a moral outrage. I know, I know, bashing the security state is one of my favorite pastimes, but it comes of having an interest in the same issues and a very different calculus of risk, tradeoff, and principle. Even as we live out one of those risks--theĀ āif you build it, they will comeā idea that you canāt construct the infrastructure of a police state and notĀ have jackbooted socipaths try like hell to capture it--itās really goodĀ to see in actionĀ that thereās a big, bright line in the sand, and that some of the people I have bitter differences with willĀ fight like hell when itās crossed. Thatās not always a given, these days.)
The other thing about this order is that youāve got no shortage of options for arguing against it in terms of conservativesā own values, including limiting executive power, respect for the rule of law and separation of powers, practical counterterrorism concerns, freedom of religion--and doing right by the legal permanent residents who didĀ follow the rules, go through the system, and do everything right, and who got screwed mid-flight by sudden, capricious tampering with the established authorities.
