If it could be Constitutional if enacted by Clinton, then it’s Constitutional when enacted by Trump. Trump’s “campaign animus” against Muslims is a fiction of the media and political elites. Neither Trump nor anyone else would have any “animus” against Islam or Muslims were it not for jihad terrorism. The idea that Trump was motivated by “racism” or “bigotry” is palpably absurd; he was trying to act in defense of national security. But that is not acceptable to the Left these days.
“ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton,” NTK Network, May 8, 2017:
ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.
Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.
“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.
Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.
Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.
“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”
“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.
Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim….