Page 4 - Contribution Constitution News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

It goes so far beyond the courts narrow application of the question presented that it simply and applicable, when we focus on the case and the contesting of the case which mark spoon i'm not a lawyer, i'm just asking a question, due process under the constitution only applies to visas and immigration when those rights are curtailed by an executive order by the president. >> that's what the executive court of appeal said. spent x plane to be in simple terms what's legally wrong with the president's executive order orders? why are they against the constitution >> there's several significant infi...

Authority to challenge this because the president has unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens. the court ruled when it comes to immigration at a national security, neither the supreme court nor our court that courts lacked the authority to review consecutive action in those arenas for compliance with the constitution. president trump tweeted seat you in court. the security of our nation is at stake. here's what the president said, listen close. >> president trump: it's a political decision, i look forward to doing it. we have a situation where the security of our...

By tweeting we just saw you in court, and we beat you, tucker. >> tucker: thanks a lot for that. the people providing the legal opposition is karl racine, he is the attorney general for district of columbia, he's one of the 16 attorneys general who signed an amicus brief supported lawsuit against the president's orders, he joins us now from washington, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much for having me. >> tucker: in the ruling tonight, there was this line and i'm puzzled by it. the government has not shown the executive order provides what due process requires. this order applies mos...

Highlighted in none of the seven countries it issued did the government present any evidence of any terrorist strike from those countries to the united states. under the courts review, under the constitution, the government needed to provide that evidence and totally failed to, that's another very important fact here. >> tucker: okay, so your position because you signed on on this in the amicus brief is that there is no threat from refugees or immigrants from somalia even though there have been a couple of pretty recent cases where refugees from that specific country or children have committed...

Immigration is entitled to deference, it is reviewable under constitutional standards. that's point number one. second point, second point, standing. the court made clear that states have standing to bring action against the federal government where the federal government's actions will impact the states, the states of washington and minnesota presented compelling evidence of the impact on students at universities, professors at universities, employees, and businesses. >> tucker: that all seems reasonable, but what's the court legal or constitutional problem with the orders in the first place?...