From the beginning of this I never understood how there could be any legal basis whatsoever for the ban. Apparently that's because there was none.
At the minimum, you can’t publish an app on the Google’s or Apple’s app stores without a financial transaction. It’s essentially impossible to conduct business abroad (even “free” business) if you can’t legally transact.
Congress can pass such a law and the President can sign it.
Because we are a nation of laws, not autocratic whims.
Imagine if a president after Lincoln decided that they were going to reverse the Emancipation Proclamation. Would they be in authority to do so? Probably. But you're taking away rights at that point. DACA promised a bunch of kids with, "Hey, give us your names and addresses and we promise not to ever deport you," without a clear path to residence/citizenship for their family members.
It's a Pandora's Box that's been abused by both parties and it's going to come back to bite everyone at some point.
The emancipation proclamation was in no way a binding document. It was simply a "proclamation" of the stated position of the executive branch regarding slavery during Lincoln's administration, that they would cease to recognize its' legitimacy as law. The 13th amendment, (an act of congress which created a new law), legally freed the slaves. DACA is a very similar situation. An executive may choose which laws to prioritize for enforcement, and in this case that's exactly what Obama did. The president cannot, however, enforce a law that does not exist or that he wishes existed, which Trump is attempting to here.
It was a wartime military order during a war in which much of the relevant part of the country came under military occupation. It absolutely was binding.
> It was simply a "proclamation" of the stated position of the executive branch regarding slavery during Lincoln's administration, that they would cease to recognize its' legitimacy as law.
Not only was it not only that, it wasn't at all that. It was an order applied to the rebel territory then under occupation and other rebel territory as it came under occupation.
> The 13th amendment, (an act of congress which created a new law),
The 13th Amendment, as the name suggests, was a Constitutional Amendment. It was proposed to the States by an Act of Congress, but new law was created by ratification by the states. But most slaves were actually freed by the military occupation under the emancipation proclamation, not the 13th Amendment.
I agree the way it SHOULD work is that congress passes laws and executive orders describe how those laws get enacted.
But we've seen more powerful executive orders, with the most dangerous coming about during the W Bush administration. People are fine when a candidate they like uses those increasing powers of "good" but then scream when it's used by Bush/Trump for the same purposes.
Executive orders have limits, specifically to offices that are directly under the Executive Branch (military, homeland security, intelligence, etc.) and so far Trump's orders actually fallen carefully within those limits.
He's been testing the limits of those jurisdictions and federal judges have struck them back. In reality, they should have been doing that years ago with other presidents, but instead we got decades of predator drones, warrantless wiretapping and secret kill lists.
Given that a federal judge's ruling is the textbook definition of a legal basis...yeah? At least until it goes to a higher court.