Trump’s Executive Order Controversy

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

WILKES-BARRE -- At the core of those protesting President Trump's executive action over the weekend are two concerns -- is the ban constitutional and how much power does a president really have?

We spoke with a civil rights lawyer and a professor who teaches constitutional law in Wilkes-Barre. Both gave us more insight into a president's power through executive orders.

In President Trump's first week in office, he utilized that power heavily. But both experts also weighed in on how his order on immigration stands up to existing laws and the U.S. Constitution.

In his first week, Trump quickly put pen to paper signing more than a dozen executive orders, including one setting off protesters around the country over the order to ban immigrants traveling here from seven Muslim-majority countries.

"This order is grossly unconstitutional," said Barry Dyller.

Dyller has been a civil rights lawyer in Wilkes-Barre for over 30 years and explains the president's executive order on immigration violates current law and several international treaties, something an executive order cannot do.

"An executive order is supposed to be how the president implements or applies the law. But the president cannot make law. This executive order appears to be saying, 'I don't care about the law,'" Dyller said.

The current Immigration and Nationality Act allows a president broad authority over who can and cannot immigrate to this country. That seems to be the principal argument for President Trump's executive order. But even in that act, a president cannot discriminate based on religion.

Furthermore, any person detained under the order is entitled to constitutional due process.

"I would argue the biggest problem, and the problem that the judge found is the due process clause. The due process clause says if the government attempts to limit the liberty of any individual on American soil, they must follow certain procedures," explained constitutional law professor Kyle Kreider.

Kreider is a constitutional law professor at Wilkes University. He believes the confusion over the constitutionality of the president's executive order on immigration stems from the broadness of the order.

"The executive order was written in such a rash, quick fashion that it was not properly vetted. That the people on the ground who had to enforce and execute the order, there was no agreement on what the order required them to do. When you get that, then you get into the area of arbitrary behavior and that seems to violate due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment."

Republican U.S. Senator Pat Toomey issued a statement Monday saying, in part, "the initial executive order was flawed. It was too broad and poorly explained."

He also went on to say that he supports the ban after some clarification of it by the administration.


  • Vlad's Horse

    I dont know understand how he writes with small hands? Needs to talk to Eskimos that ride bears to talk to country. In Russia, bear rides eskimo to dollar store. Eskimo throws spear and brings back Newport pleasure.

  • ronnie

    And how does PH D Kreider have any knowledge whatsoever the Executive Order was “rash”? Ph D’s, like celebrities are arrogant and condescending to the rest of us. No outrage from these people when Obama was bypassing Congress every chance he got by using Executive Orders. Its scary that these professors use their classrooms to push their own political agenda instead of giving both sides of a controversial issue and encouraging independent thought.

  • Lloyd Schmucatelli

    There is only a certain group of people that consider it a controversy. I don’t consider it controversy. I considered getting the job done.

  • WarningFakeNews

    While the station FINALLY put a little balance in a couple of these pieces today, but this is just another one like the other 10 or so before on this ONE SUBJECT over the weekend that distorts the truth. This is a coordinated effort from the left, planned in advance and paid for by Soros, and the media is part of their team.

    NOTHING in the mainstream media can be trusted anymore, and the overwhelming majority of Americans know this.

    • beingrealhere

      A coordinated effort to follow The Constitution. Remember checks and balances? Did you have U.S. civics class in high school?

      • WarningFakeNews

        It was within his Constitutional discretion to issue the order, just as the actions that Obama took on Cuba and Iraq were. People not here, not our citizens, don’t have rights under the US Constitution.

      • typical liberal dope

        all presidents sign executive orders, it’s in their legal right according to the constitution. Going back 5 presidents they all signed hundreds of them. Get a clue.

    • ronnie

      Hardly “balance” 7 minutes of protestors, a short interview of two supporters. Can we get their license suspended, the anti Trump political spin is so blatant!

    • goose

      I’ll put it to judgement that lawyers and professors talk a lot more than that, so this is edited. Also, when you bring up “on American soil” instead of “at a port of entry to American soil”? Little bit different. Which is what is trying to be prevented. No law degree here, just common sense. Ports of entry turn away or confiscate illegal goods, and other threats to our country all the time. Now it’s a big deal that 109 people were detained and you had to call somebody to argue the facts that our way of life has been previously threatened by areas that are “temporarily banned” for the safety of the majority? The logic baffles me. Let me know when it goes to court. What is YOUR argument?

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.