The President appears unable to convince the Judicial Branch his Executive Order 'travel ban' is constitutional, or necessary, as it specifies preference to be given to 'persecuted religious minorities' within Majority Muslim countries. Violating by its even vague initial wording the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution--to not establish a 'state' religion, or give preference to ANY religion.
With his Immigration Executive Order, he appears to be attempting to convince the press, and everyone else, that he can or will prove that lax immigration law enforcement has resulted in his losing the popular vote in the recent election by nearly 3 million votes, because they were all illegal immigrants voting.
But the latest Executive Order, which resulted, though he claims not, in the recent 'round ups' and 'raids' of supposedly known or named potential criminals, violates the right to due process to be afforded to every and anyone (not just citizens) residing in the U.S.--which, at its heart, unlike in totalitarian states, requires an assumption of innocence, rather than guilt, on the part of the accused, as well as a right to confront their accuser, and to not have to defend themselves against an accusation--it is, when charged with a crime, a burden on the state or federal prosecutor to prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that the person is guilty of the crime or crimes of which they are accused.
And the latest order includes wording indicating enforcement can be made--including detention, arrest, and deportment--based on an enforcing officer's opinion whether or not the person accused, or even suspected, could commit a crime or be guilty of a crime, rather than having to prove it in a court of law.
The Logan Act: it is a law, rarely enforced but existing nonetheless, that makes it a crime for a private citizen or businessperson to have contacts with foreign government officials, particularly about foreign policy decisions or actions made by a sitting government. The crime is committed because the President and his State Department are in charge of foreign policy, and their actions or analysis of world situations can be compromised or undermined by private citizen interference.
Outgoing National Security Agency chief and former Defense Intelligence Agency head Gen. Michael Flynn has resigned over indications he may have in fact, even inadvertently, violated the Act--which, technically, would mean he may have committed a crime. The Vice President says he was assured no conversations were had with Russian contacts about President Obama's foreign policy decisions or actions between Gen. Flynn, who was not yet NSA head, and Russian officials. Flynn, confronted with apparently Justice Department information contrary to that, has said he "may have" not been entirely truthful or forthcoming to the Vice President. So he is out.
Emoluments Clause: this is a part of the U.S. Constitution that makes it a violation of the founding document to accept 'emoluments'; gifts, graft, titles, anything that could potentially be seen as currying favor. Like money. Like bribes. Like information intended to help a political candidate.
This is where things have gotten tricky: the President has 'tweeted' against a company for dropping his daughter's fashion line--which, having the same last name as he, benefits the family businesses, considering the name brand is largely the family's business. And his wife, Melania Trump, in a libel lawsuit contended her ability to cash in on her position as First Lady was damaged by the actions of The Daily Mail as well as a blogger, with whom she settled. President Trump also recently held a state dinner with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in which he may or may not have discussed sensitive issues, including North Korea's launching of a ballistic missile in an apparent furthering attempt to prove it has nuclear muscle. At which, the officer assigned to carry "the football," the brief case containing nuclear warfare codes and other items, was photographed by a dinner-goer, a member of the President's Mar-a-Lago Club.
So, how many other people had dinner, paid for dinner, or just paid to be able to say they dined at the Mar-a-Lago Club in sight of President Trump and Prime Minister Abe? And to whom does that money go? And did they all have security clearance--required for any appearance of the President of the United States before the public except motorcades (required for members of the press, to get close enough to photograph the President and Mr. Abe; to take notes on what they say, to cover a press conference involving the President or even Congress).
In other words, in addition to potentially compromising the security of The United States by having a state dinner at which members of the Mar-a-Lago Club could pay (who?) to attend, the President may have also compromised the security of information; the security of documents; the security of the "nuclear football," not to mention, the security of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan.
So. That's where we are, in not quite the third week of the Donald Trump administration.
Moral of this story so far: read everything before signing it. And trust the mainstream media more than the White House. Any White House.