Sunday, February 19, 2017
No Matter How Many New Travel Bans Trump Issues, Maximum Power Does Not Mean Absolute Power
President's Day is tomorrow. On that occasion, Cyrus Mehta and Sophia Genovese-Halvorson blog about the limits on presidential power in light of recent presidential immigration initiatives:
"President Trump derives his authority to assert maximum power through the plenary power doctrine, wlich arose from a Supreme Court case in the late 1800s, Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, that upheld the racist Chinese Exclusion Act. In the 21st century, after the United States has made such strides in civil rights, women’s rights, and marriage equality, there is no longer place for plenary power as a justification to violate the Constitution. Allowing President Trump to assert such maximum power, based on the plenary power doctrine, only takes America back more than a hundred years after all the progress that has been achieved. The plenary power, as asserted in the travel ban EO, also sends a wrong message to the world that America is no longer a welcoming place for people to travel, do business, temporarily work, or to make a permanent home. Being unwelcoming, arbitrary and intolerant is inconsistent with the notion of America as a great nation. On this President’s Day, it is important to reflect whether now is the opportune moment to reassess the plenary power doctrine that was grounded in a racist law whose purpose was to exclude Chinese nationals just as the current or future EO is aimed against banning Muslims. It is high time for the courts to once and for all recognize the supremacy of the Constitution over the president’s absolute power."
KJ
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2017/02/no-matter-how-many-new-travel-bans-trump-issues-maximum-power-does-not-mean-absolute-power-.html
