The Trump administration finally revealed its second try at the immigration ban that conclusively proved in its first iteration that there wasn’t a person in the administration with a clue how to do this whole governance thing. It was nothing short of a manifesto of incompetence, notwithstanding the president’s inability to grasp why it wasn’t well received.

So they apparently found someone in Washington with sufficient understanding of law to revise the Executive Order.

This order is much more narrowly tailored, providing exemptions not just to those with green cards and other valid visas, but also people with significant contacts to United States, students, children, urgent medical cases, and other special circumstances—and Iraq is necessarily treated as a special case—as well as spelling out reasons for the remaining restrictions.

Having corrected some of the most shockingly idiotic errors in the original order, such as the inclusion of legal permanent residents and visa holders, has Trump finally cleaned up his mess while keeping his promise to keep those nasty Muslim refugees from terrorizing our nation? Not exactly.

The “wisdom” of this EO might not be questioned by people with a shallow understanding of the risks and problems, but that won’t be the case with either advocates against the ban or courts considering its legality. Trump’s cheap talk, like all cheap talk, may play better with the groundlings than with those charged with stopping the Executive from overstepping his bounds.

Ilya Shapiro at Cato recognizes this, but contends that the initial plea to prejudice should be chalked up to locker room talk.

And then there are the atmospherics of what so many people consider to be a “Muslim ban.” Just because a presidential candidate uses hyperbolic language during a campaign—or his surrogates use similarly inartful language on national TV—doesn’t mean that any policy in that area is constitutionally suspect, but some judges will surely see it that way.

Indeed, pretty much anything that comes from Trump’s mouth or fingers can be rationalized away as inartful language, which most would find to be the understatement of the year. And whether Trump should be accountable for the crap that flowed from Rudy Giuliani, described as his “surrogate,” remains a sore point, given the inexplicable stupidity of Rudy’s utterance.

The problem isn’t that this revised EO would be unlawful in itself. Had this been the original EO rather than that embarrassment scribbled in crayon in the first place, there would likely be no legal issue. After all, noncitizens outside of the United States are not afforded constitutional rights, and the law provides near total discretion to the president to restrict entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). While the wisdom of such a ban would remain a huge bone of contention, the immigration plenary power of the president would put this EO beyond the reach of the courts.

The problem is, however, that this second EO doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There is no second chance to make a first impression, and having raised the specter that this EO is merely a subterfuge to engage in religious discrimination against Muslims by no less an evidentiary basis than the words of the President during his campaign and his surrogate after election, it’s impossible to make those positions magically disappear.

But the revised order remains vulnerable on the ground that its real purpose is religious discrimination against Muslims, which was the basis for the most recent trial court ruling against the initial order. Like the original order, the new one is still clearly an outgrowth of Trump’s advocacy of a “Muslim ban,” as admitted by Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani, who played a key role in drafting the first order. Courts have repeatedly – and correctly – ruled that Trump and Giuliani’s anti-Muslim statements are relevant to assessing the constitutionality of the original order.

Yet, this too gives rise to a systemic problem, as there is no precedent for impugning a president’s motives based on the pandering and hyperbole of campaign speech. While it’s hard to doubt that Trump meant what he said as a candidate, that this is an unconstitutional Muslim ban, the implications for future presidential candidates to have their authority curtailed after election based upon their campaign hype raises serious concerns.

What happens when a candidate becomes president, learns of things that compel action about which he was unaware before, and acts on it, only to have his authority undermined by things said during the campaign? Bear in mind, any limits imposed by a court on Trump will similarly be available to challenge future presidents. Precedent tends to come back to haunt us.

But the president could overcome his own “inartful” language by demonstrating that there is some substantive basis for his imposition of the ban that shows that it’s not a Muslim ban, but rather a ban for some salutary purpose. Whether the government can do that is highly doubtful.

Finally, all that’s before getting into the wisdom of this policy. Refugees generally aren’t a security threat, for example, and it’s unclear whether vetting or visa-issuing procedures in the six remaining targeted countries represent the biggest weakness in our border defenses or ability to prevent terrorism on American soil.

Indeed, it reflects a government incapable of basic functioning:

But regardless of the ultimate outcome of any legal challenge, this remains a colossal policy disaster.  It continues to tell the world that we, the great country of America, cannot distinguish between the terrorists and the victims of terror.

There remains the remnants of Muslim Ban 1.0, that as much as some preferred a disruptive president who would try new, different things, electing a president to office who lacks the basic competence to grasp, no less perform, his job gives rise to a wealth of stupid problems, stupid solutions and systemic fiascos that should never exist.

There is an enormous amount of effort being put into explaining and analyzing Trump’s legal and policy mistakes, not to mention his constant insanely stupid, if not pathologic, twits. No matter how much you agree with Trump’s ironic “everyman” sensibilities, or disagree with progressive policies, his manifestly incompetent governance is going to haunt his every move.

Once motives have been impugned, and integrity has been proven lacking, it’s hard, if not impossible, to ignore. It’s a mess. It will continue to be a mess. There is no easy way to undo incompetent governance.