Over the past three weeks, the American Constitution has been in the hot seat. There have been many debates regarding whether or not the current President knows or understands the father document of the United States.
For those readers who know me or have been reading Hey Hank for some time you may know that I once was a part of an extracurricular called constitution team that analyzed the constitution and questioned whether the events of today are constitutional. For this issue, I will be looking at President Trump’s two latest accomplishments through a lense that questions their constitutionality: a ban on immigration and the appointment of a supreme court justice.
- The immigration ban: This ban is….not constitutional
- Under Article 1 Section 8 the constitution grants congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” In layman’s terms, this means that congress can decide where the borders are and can control immigration. This means that if a ban was simply to change the immigration ruling with little basis other than maybe overpopulation of the nation, the President wouldn’t be able to issue an order to make this possible. In order for the president to control immigration, they may issue an executive order with the burden of proof being that without an immigration ban the constitution may be in danger. This was the argument made by President Roosevelt when he issued executive order 9066 which interred people of Japanese descent in camps around America. This means that in order for President trump’s executive order to be constitutional, he must prove that the nation is in danger without a alteration in immigration. The only reasoning he has given behind why it is necessary to ban people from these five countries is because terrorist come from these countries and will threaten the lives of americans. There are many flaws in this argument and PBS walks through some of these problems in their article. Additionally, Trump has offered little data to prove definitively, that today’s immigration standards prove to put the United States Constitution in danger. This means that in order for Trump’s ban to be constitutional it must first seek congressional approval.
- President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination and the republican’s refusal to hear President Obama’s nomination…constitutional
- Under article 2 section 2, the president has the duty to – with the advice and consent of the Senate – “nominate judges of the supreme court.” This proves that it is constitutional for Trump to appoint Judge Gorsuch as every president has been able to do since 1789. However, in this same vein, you would think that Obama would be able to appoint his justice yet was not able to do so due to the Republican controlled house and senate preventing a hearing. Yet in article 1, congress must establish a quorum in order to appoint justices. This quorum means that more than 2 thirds of the house of representatives must meet to hear a justice . Paul Ryan – speaker of the house – called upon his fellow republicans to not attend the rulings therefore making it impossible to achieve a quorum and hear the nomination