Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump
by williamle8300 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @03:49PM
(#13544982)
No, you're wrong. You can preempt intentions of a bill. A bill is a bill. If Trump wants to overreach he'll have to introduce another bill. This bill is specifically to curb nations that have been havens for radical Islamic people.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump
by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @03:51PM
(#13545011)
The E.O. is not a bill, and no new bill would be required to implement the parts of it that I related. (Well, it might be legally required just as new legislation might be legally required to do what is called for in the 90-day ban, which is being challenged as a violation of existing law; but that's an after-the-fact constraint that doesn't prevent overreach, it just potentially provides a basis for responding to it, provided the courts are doing their job more faithfully than the President is doing his.)