Andrew, fair point in terms of “I’m a lawyer” doesn’t mean I’m always right on the law or the conclusions I draw. Trump too has lawyers, some of which defend his right to sign the EO. But, in this case, as the WA Federal Judge proved last night, the EO was unlawful in many ways and will continue to be adjudicated as such in future cases. A non-exhaustive list of the ways it violates the constitution here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html
Furthermore, you are incorrect about what Obama did in 2011. It was not a ban and it certainly wasn’t a violation of the constitution. It was an increase in vetting from a certain area in response to credible, actual threats, not Islamophobia which is what clearly led President Bannon and Stephen Miller to push this EO: http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011
Lastly, while there are a tremendous amount of non-lawyers posing as constitutional scholars online, jurisprudence is a delicate and detailed matter. I will do my level best to refrain from sweeping statements like the one you pointed out; and I will continue to point out when non-lawyers do not know what they’re talking about.
Thanks for your comment. I really do appreciate it.