Timeline for Why are the promises President Trump made on the travel ban not relevant to determine whether the executive order itself is constitutional?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 8:09 | vote | accept | Nzall | ||
| Jun 26, 2018 at 18:39 | comment | added | phoog | @RonBeyer that's not what the court said; they said that the government's position is sufficient to survive a rational basis review. They did not make an absolute statement prohibiting the consideration of extrinsic statements. In fact, the majority opinion states the opposite: "In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, ..." and "For our purposes today, we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation....". The dissent concerns both the selection of review standard and the outcome of the review under that standard. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 17:30 | answer | added | hszmv | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 17:23 | comment | added | Ron Beyer | The constitutionality of an executive order should be judged based on the order alone, not with regard to statements made by the person making the order. I think what the SCOTUS is saying is that "this order is constitutional regardless of the motivations behind it", In your example that may be like being charged with murder is correct, regardless of it being premeditated or not. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 17:15 | history | asked | Nzall | CC BY-SA 4.0 |