Ninety days have passed since the “travel ban, version 2.0” was implemented. That means, because it was initiated as temporary, it has now expired. Not surprisingly, the media are all over this, so I feel less like I’m a lonely voice monitoring unilateral executive actions.
At this point, I have only a few comments. First, I find it interesting that this time the official action is a proclamation not and executive order. I believe, historically and in general, proclamations are not viewed to be as legally binding as an executive order is, but that may about to be tested.
Second, this makes one wonder if the case waiting for argument before the Supreme Court next month will actually be argued. It seems to me the Court could simply now reject hearing the case declaring it moot. But, it may still hear the case in order to settle the general argument rather than the specifics, and, if so, that would be a very interesting event.
Third, the addition of North Korea and Venezuela in particular to the list of countries banned in this proclamation would appear to remove one of the original challenges to its constitutionality, because those two countries are not likely to be seen as “Muslim” nations.
Finally, this lengthy proclamation begins with paragraphs of overblown, self-serving rhetoric, and continues with long explanations of reports from cabinet officers. In fact, most of it appears more a public report than a proclamation.
Ed. Note: In case anyone is interested in the minutia, at the bottom of this post, I’ve listed links to the original executive orders and my comments about them.
Official Title and Link: Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats
Proclamation dated September 24, 2017
Links to original executive orders:
Links to my previous comments: