al, ban, Green, Impeachment, iran, muslim, oral argument, president, roberts, supreme court, The House of Representatives, travel, trump
Oral arguments over the Trump Administration’s new travel ban occurred yesterday in front of the Supreme Court. The conservative justices of the Court signaled that they believed the revised ban to be a constitutional exercise of executive power done in pursuit of national security. Significantly, Chief Justice Roberts indicated that President Trump’s statements detailing an intention to implement a “Muslim-ban” would likely not be considered in determining the order’s constitutionality.
If the Supreme Court ultimately confirms that the revised travel ban is constitutional despite Trump’s statements, it may have a negative effect on future impeachment proceedings. Representative Al Green’s impeachment resolution cited President Trump’s travel ban as one reason he should be impeached. Though an act may be both constitutional and worthy of impeachment, as they have far different standards, the Supreme Court decision could still set a precedent. It may act as an endorsement of sorts.
Richard Liu said:
In another time in the seemingly very distant past the President could have credibly imposed a travel ban for reasons of national security without any further justification, given that the justification itself might imperil the nation or, at least, weaken the measure. This president, however, has lied so often that he should not be accorded the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, he should have to reveal to a closed session of the Supreme Court what concrete dangers to national security the ban should address.