The president’s actions, granted on behalf of congress, are already being challenged in court.
Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.