Speaking of firings, does the FBI director also serve at the pleasure of the president? I don't understand why Obama did not fire Comey.

It's a coup d'état.

Better clear the weekend calendar for another protest against whatever insane, fascist acts Twitler will commit this week. And it's only Tuesday!

"And for those of you keep score at home: Trump has been president for nine days and we've already had two constitutional crises."

Three. He's been violating the Emoluments Clause since the moment he took the oath.
Four if you also count violating federal anti-nepotism laws—though that might fall under the more general heading of a Republican-led Congress failing to to its job, which is a constitutional crisis that's been building since 1995 or so.

The Seattle Times has a nice little article about Ruckelshaus today: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world…

@1:

As I understand it, the Director of the FBI serves for a 10 year term and cannot be dismissed by the president. This was done precisely to avoid a new administration coming in and sweeping the position, as Trump has already done with so many other career bureaucrats.

"Betrayed"? That's slanderous.

@3
Don't be so dramatic. I'm sure Trump gets a hotel for his piss fetish.

@6 it's a 10 year term, but can still be fired at will by the pres. Clinton fired one for being a crook (after repeatedly asking him to resign).

@1

The wisdom during the election is that HRC was projected to win as long as the Dems didn't rock the boat too hard. Firing Comey would have blown everything up and the Republicans would have without question taken this as election tampering from the highest office in the land. Also there were logistical issues about who would run the department until a new appointee could be found and there was a common though that Commey wasn't himself shady ass person, but a man who was struggling to maintain control of an agency where many of his agents were threatening mutiny.

We've all been categorically corrected since then.

Not that I support the ban, or Trump, or think that Yates "failed to do her job"; but uh... compare/contrast: Kim Davis.

@12: Kim Davis refused to do the job she was specifically hired to do, and failed to uphold the values for which she swore an oath when hired, or the law that had already been settled by the Supreme Court. Sally Yates was fired because she was doing her job, following her oath, and upholding the law.

The constitution gives the executive branch very broad powers when it comes to immigration and the admittance of foreign nationals and refugees to the country. The current travel ban, based on its wording in the executive order, is constitutional, much like it was when Obama restricted travel and visa issuance from the same nations on several occasions.

That being said, if Trump indeed admits people based on religion and not country of origin, which would be in violation of the executive order itself, that would be in violation of several laws. But as written, Trump does have the legal right to suspend travel based on his interpretations of what foreign nationals would constitute a reasonable danger, and for what he considers a reasonable amount of time. Obama set the legal groundwork and precedence for this with his visa waiver program.

This does not make it right or sensible, of course. Just technically legal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/…