The Office of Legal Counsel said the ban was legal. That is their job to determine.My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1620589, member: 25415 wrote:Nobody voted for Trump because he was actually qualified for the position. You can't say that they did because he has no prior experience. Even worse, his cabinet reads like a list of major players in the corporate disinformation racquet.[DOUBLEPOST=1485863570,1485862956][/DOUBLEPOST]
You really sound like you need a history lesson. If you want it broken down for you: Dictator used to be a general term. It is a position in government enabled by 'temporary' law. Dictators are usually granted extensions of power beyond the authority of any normal position, legally or by declaration of emergency. You get those by causing panic and then claiming to bring order. Perhaps you're only interested in sources which identify as conservative? Easily done. In the words of Conservapedia.com:
There have been many warning signs. The false threat of rising crime is one of them about which Trump frequently lies. So is themyth about the threat of foreign terrorism. Do you think it is now difficult to find evidence of autocratic behavior?
At this point it's either very bad that he is grossly incompetent, or it's the first step in something much worse. I am not content hedging my bets that he has good intentions when his cabinet choices, fear-mongering, and personal record are more than enough. Screw waiting for something to get worse whether he intends it or not.
The Department of Justice lawyers' jobs is to issue legal supporting arguments for executive orders.
Sally Yates, who was carried over from the last administration, admitted that in her letter then took it upon herself to tell the lawyers not to defend it because she personally didn't personally agree with it and found it may be illegal, which again isn't her job to determine.
Their job is to defend it, imagine if you were assigned a defense attorney and they just decided "Eh **** it he's guilty"
It is not their job to determine the legality, it is their job to defend it in courts where it is being challenged.
So no there was no overreach here, Trump was FULLY within his constitutional rights to fire her, for the same reason you would fire a defense attorney who won't actually defend you.
Also as far as qualifications go, Trump had talked about running for decades, Oprah Winfrey suggested the idea that he was making "Presidential talk" on her show decades ago because he was giving deep thoughts on the economy and foreign affairs, but ignoring that even, What are the qualifications to run for president?
Qualifications for the Office of President
- Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
- No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
- No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Trump just proves you don't have to be loved by the political establishment like Hillary was to be able to legitimately stand a chance at winning when running for the presidency.