This is an actual question someone is asking. This is where we are now. My lord.

The Judicial Branch was 100% there at some point and time I assume?

I see it now lol. That was an easy move for Trump. Your constitution sure is mailable.

What should happen... Well, the military has sworn to uphold the constitution.

What will happen... We might find out.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...udicial-branch

Any clue if they've been questioned about this? And what they've said?

ba-dum tsss

So about all of the "OBAMA DID IT TOO!" someone on my FB is claiming that the reason Trump banned the countries he did is because it was "easier" to do so after Obama banned the iraqi refugees in 2011. I can't really find anything talking about that. Anyone have any sources?

Well, how many tanks does the judicial branch have? The executive has a lot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...obama-in-2011/

This seems on point.

I skimmed the article but didn't see much in the way of which countries were affected.

I mean, if it was just Iraqi refugees, then I don't really get where she's getting "It's just easier to not include Saudi Arabia!"

If they use countries chosen by the Obama administration it gives them cover when people call it a "Muslin Ban" instead of just an anti-terrorist move.

there was something about the obama administration having those countries on a list to look at more carefully

This is a great post. Please keep updating.

Major thing is is it wasn't a ban. They just reviewed visas which slowed down the process.

Fly alluded to this earlier. The judicial branch itself can't enforce stuff. The marshals service is generally tied to the judiciary but is part of the DOJ and is controlled by the attorney general.

the thought process behind removing that is: the judicial branch is the opposition party

Trump shouldn't need to use tanks to have federal judges who oppose him arrested, but he probably will for shock and awe factor. It's not everyday you see tanks shell a courthouse.

JFC, scary to think but I lived through tanks firing on the parliament building. It does not end well.

I figure it's time for a serious post about the limits of what the executive branch is able to do. You're not going to like it. Note, IANAL and IAN even American, and this is just what is true to the extent of my knowledge.

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal government may not usually use military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. However, under the Insurrection Act as amended 2006, the President is able to deploy the military domestically under some circumstances (my emphasis):

In other words, if the "President determines that" because of some incident, let's say a terrorist attack, people are "opposing or obstructing the execution of the laws of the United States", he can send in the full force of the US military. Against that, the judicial branch has the United States Marshals (edit: which as pointed out upthread, may not even be under their control if push came to shove).

If Trump decided to declare an "insurrection" and order troops to "restore order" in some city or other, the US would be relying on Congress to impeach him, or on a coup.

Then this will all be old hat to you.

The issue of Trump financial interests in the non-banned countries should be pressed imo. If it had nothing to do with the decision -- well, he made his bed and this is an example of why conflicts of interest should be resolved.

Love the Administration logic that the reason they gave no notice of the travel ban was because they didn't want to encourage a bunch of terrorists to fly here at the last minute. But wouldn't that have been the perfect trap play? Seems like they could have outed a lot of would-be terrorists that way if that logic was really true.

The amount of power vested in the Presidency is a flaw in the US system, imo. Back in 1999 there was a constitutional convention and Australia had a referendum on whether we should replace the Governor General (the Queen's representative here) with a President, appointed by parliament, with largely ceremonial powers (same as the Governor General). The referendum failed in part because people wanted to directly elect the President (the slogan for the opposition was "Say no to the politicians' republic"). If we end up with another referendum where the current system is put up against a directly elected President with expanded powers, then I'll be among the people voting to retain the monarchy.

It's sad when the administration assumes our enemies are movie villain smart...