Banning people from seven majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East from entering the U.S. is a highly contentious domestic issue now.
The central question is whether president has legal and constitutional authority to implement this policy that exclude foreign refugee-immigrants entering United States predicate on his convictions about safety and security of Americans from individuals who might adhere to “radical-Islamic” terrorism.
Past practices and moral imperatives cannot circumvent rule of law despite an obvious humanitarian imperative and warfare crisis for people in foreign lands seeking territorial entrance for safety, work and visitation.
There is an inherent danger in a federal appeals court ruling against President Donald Trump’s executive order since it challenges the authority of presidential powers. This ruling could feasibly establish precedent for future American presidents, weakening those implicitly expressed constitutional powers. However, presidential powers and executive branch authority has constitutional limitations delineated by codified restrictions or limitations that shouldn’t be usurped.
The U.S. Constitution and our statutes must be our only guidelines.
— Ballard J. Powell, Chicago
