When you're allowing the Executive Branch to deprive somebody of a constitutional liberty without any process, that is something that affects all Americans because that's a precedent that can be used.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected.
This is why it's bad to run a country by executive order: because our nation runs on laws - when everyone knows the law, and everyone knows what it is, you know both the law and the consequence, and you get that.
In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a court decision.
It is unfortunate that Americans are no longer aware of what the constitution says and what their rights are. Because of that, we are often very passive about what happens when the government violates those rights.
It is the function of the President, representing the executive principle, to execute the laws.
The power to arrest - to deprive a citizen of liberty - must be used fairly, responsibly, and without bias.
The U.S. Constitution was meant to be universal, not just something that only America would observe. The principle of defending liberty for all people ideally should apply everywhere in the world.
Apparently a great many people have forgotten that the framers of our Constitution went to such great effort to create an independent judicial branch that would not be subject to retaliation by either the executive branch or the legislative branch because of some decision made by those judges.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
Executive orders are meant for occasional use, not to force something through that the people's elected representatives aren't going to make law.