Legal orders without factual evidence are unconstitutional.

In media “evidence” is a term crucial  for determining fact. I remember when I was challenging a guardianship someone presumably on my side asked: but how can you prove it, which to  me meant do you have evidence?

Here fact proving “evidence” is far more important than it was for me because it suggests that evidence confirms the reality of facts needed to make a president’s order constitutional. So someone should point out the basis in the U.S. constitution  of Judge Robart’s view that a President’s order must be based on facts to be constitutional.


“…For Mr Trump’s order to be constitutional, Judge Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction”.”