"Blatantly unconstitutional"

[torbee]

Judge has already let the air out of the dipshit's first executive order, lol.

Live Updates: Trump’s Effort to Restrict Birthright Citizenship ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional,’ Judge Says​

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship to babies born on American soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and reverse decades of precedent.

In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that sued. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
Mr. Trump’s order, issued in the opening hours of his presidency, declared that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order also extended to babies of mothers who were in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers.

In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits to halt the so-called order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent has long interpreted the amendment — that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — applies to every baby born in the United States, with few exceptions.

In the case before Judge Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, the state attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona had argued that Mr. Trump’s order would deny rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born each year and leave some of them stateless. States would also lose federal funding for various assistance programs.

In their briefs, the states cite testimony from then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. In 1995, Mr. Dellinger told Congress that a law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and that even a constitutional amendment would “flatly contradict the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”

Federal government lawyers argued in the hearing that they should have the opportunity to provide a more complete briefing to the court because the executive order would not take effect until next month. The states responded that the administration’s order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs, and that births of new babies would have a cloud over them.
Judge Coughenour emphatically agreed with the states: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

A separate federal lawsuit filed by 18 other states and two cities is being considered in Massachusetts.
Show less

 

[mnole03]

Coughenour went to Iowa.

 

[torbee]

Coughenour went to Iowa.

Would explain the common sense displayed.

 

[TC Nole OX]

Coughenour went to Iowa.

Appointed by Reagan aka the pied piper of gutting the middle class

 

[TennNole17]

I feel like some of these EOs are like lawsuits. You can sue anyone, for anything- doesn’t mean it will win?

 

[Crafty Beaver]

Which, of course, is the first step in making that determination. Get the courts to rule on it.

Then it can be ironed out through the legislative process how to clarify/fix our broken system.

 

[mnole03]

Appointed by Reagan aka the pied piper of gutting the middle class

But it was still a time where Conservatives cared about competency. Reagan made quite a few moderate judicial appointments.

 

[torbee]

Which, of course, is the first step in making that determination. Get the courts to rule on it.

Then it can be ironed out through the legislative process how to clarify/fix our broken system.

Hate to break it to ya, Beav, but the legislature also cannot override the Constitution unless it votes to amend the Constitution.

 

[stillh8unlv]

Which, of course, is the first step in making that determination. Get the courts to rule on it.

Then it can be ironed out through the legislative process how to clarify/fix our broken system.

It follows Trumps brand - throw as much shit against the wall and see what sticks. Keep everyone playing whack a mole while you pilfer and plunder

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Really need to start sanctioning these lawyers.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Which, of course, is the first step in making that determination. Get the courts to rule on it.

Then it can be ironed out through the legislative process how to clarify/fix our broken system.

This order does absolutely nothing to "clarify/fix our broken system". This is political grandstanding that will - like so much of what Trump says or does - go absolutely nowhere. There is one way and one way only to end birthright citizenship. A high schooler could explain it.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Which, of course, is the first step in making that determination. Get the courts to rule on it.

Then it can be ironed out through the legislative process how to clarify/fix our broken system.

The only "solution" to ending birthright citizenship is a constitutional amendment.

Either that or you get the SCOTUS to say the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Which I somewhat expect that it will do. Next they will say president's arn't limited to 2 terms then they will say the president doesn't have to leave office after 4 years and can declare himself president for life by executive order.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

That judge needs to stay away from 10th floor windows…

 

[artradley]

Which, of course, is the first step in making that determination. Get the courts to rule on it.

Then it can be ironed out through the legislative process how to clarify/fix our broken system.

Well...no. Passing a blatantly unconstitutional executive order is NOT the first step for anything.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Really need to start sanctioning these lawyers.

I'm generally against this as attorneys have to make the best case argument for their clients. But officers of the Court need to be held accountable when they bring bad faith arguments wasting the Court's time and resources.

Trump doesn't care about the judicial system though.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Well...no. Passing a blatantly unconstitutional executive order is NOT the first step for anything.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”

The crazy thing is that a lot of EO's push the line just to test where the line is on what a president can or can't do. Usually you could make some argument for their constitutionality even if it's a really weak argument.

This one goes way over the line and just goes directly against very clear text.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I'm generally against this as attorneys have to make the best case argument for their clients. But officers of the Court need to be held accountable when they bring bad faith arguments wasting the Court's time and resources.

Trump doesn't care about the judicial system though.

It a high bar though. I don’t think attorneys making legitimate arguments are suddenly going to get swept up in a wave of sanctions.

But when you’re just filing bullshit….

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

This is not a surprise to anyone with a functioning brain or even an elementary understanding of USA civics.

 

[Aardvark86]

Really need to start sanctioning these lawyers.

it's really not that easy, though one never says never, given the high standard of review under rule 11

in this case, from the little i've read, there is a plausible or good faith argument for change in interpretation based on the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' language in the amendment. that language has indeed been construed pretty narrowly in the past and doesn't support this EO. but litigants get some deference to make their arguments that is even more lenient than the old chevron deference applicable to agencies.

The problem is that these sorts of extremely theoretical arguments are the kind of thing that navel gazing academics spend hours pondering their navels over, and they tend to get tested in actual litigation by lawyers that don't "really" have living breathing clients that are personally on the hook for something. In the 60s they were the province of the left (US v SCRAP was literally a law school final project). For the past four years, those lawyers "clients" have been conjured up fake plaintiff organizations, and for the next, they'll be the government itself, which is really to say the executive branch.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

it's really not that easy, though one never says never, given the high standard of review under rule 11

in this case, from the little i've read, there is a plausible or good faith argument for change in interpretation based on the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' language in the amendment. that language has indeed been construed pretty narrowly in the past and doesn't support this EO. but litigants get some deference to make their arguments that is even more lenient than the old chevron deference applicable to agencies.

The problem is that these sorts of extremely theoretical arguments are the kind of thing that navel gazing academics spend hours pondering their navels over, and they tend to get tested in actual litigation by lawyers that don't "really" have living breathing clients that are personally on the hook for something. In the 60s they were the province of the left. For the past four years, those lawyers "clients" have been conjured up fake plaintiff organizations, and for the next, they'll be the government itself, which is really to say the executive branch.

I don't know....the Constitutional Amendment was pretty clear. I would never take this argument in good faith before any court.

 

[Aardvark86]

I don't know....the Constitutional Amendment was pretty clear. I would never take this argument in good faith before any court.

don't get me wrong. i tend to agree. But the reality, as you've noted, is that the system is designed so that one is allowed to lose bigly without being sanctioned.

****ing pointy headed law professors.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

Judge has already let the air out of the dipshit's first executive order, lol.

Live Updates: Trump’s Effort to Restrict Birthright Citizenship ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional,’ Judge Says​

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship to babies born on American soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and reverse decades of precedent.

In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that sued. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
Mr. Trump’s order, issued in the opening hours of his presidency, declared that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order also extended to babies of mothers who were in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers.

In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits to halt the so-called order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent has long interpreted the amendment — that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — applies to every baby born in the United States, with few exceptions.

In the case before Judge Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, the state attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona had argued that Mr. Trump’s order would deny rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born each year and leave some of them stateless. States would also lose federal funding for various assistance programs.

In their briefs, the states cite testimony from then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. In 1995, Mr. Dellinger told Congress that a law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and that even a constitutional amendment would “flatly contradict the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”

Federal government lawyers argued in the hearing that they should have the opportunity to provide a more complete briefing to the court because the executive order would not take effect until next month. The states responded that the administration’s order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs, and that births of new babies would have a cloud over them.
Judge Coughenour emphatically agreed with the states: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

A separate federal lawsuit filed by 18 other states and two cities is being considered in Massachusetts.
Show less

How many are living in your basement you liberal dipshit?

 

[HROT]

So he read more than the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Aardvark86]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

1. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' language does have to mean something. And while initially focused on blacks in the us post civil war, it's pretty clear that it's not just that from the debates.
2. As i understand it, it's generally been construed to mean that it excludes people like ambassadors and their children.
3. But it's not crazy to ask whether it makes sense for the US born children of, say, Alex Ovechkin, who I assume is here on some sort of temporary work visa, to be treated differently than children of Russian diplomats, in the sense that there's really no reason to believe that Ovi's allegiance to the US is somehow greater than that of his country's ambassador. And if that's the case with respect to non diplomatic persons with legal presence, it's not unfair to ask why it would be better for people without legal presence.

So again, I don't think much of the basis of this EO (particularly if i'm sitting in the chair of a district judge), but there's probably enough for the government lawyer tasked with defending it to not sweat sanctions too much given the rule 11 standard.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

I thought [they] were only coming here ILLEGALLY to do the jobs HROTers are too stupid or lazy to do? If that's the case, why are they breeding when they have no means of supporting a family other than welfare?

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

1. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' language does have to mean something. And while initially focused on blacks in the us post civil war, it's pretty clear that it's not just that from the debates.
2. As i understand it, it's generally been construed to mean that it excludes people like ambassadors and their children.
3. But it's not crazy to ask whether it makes sense for the US born children of, say, Alex Ovechkin, who I assume is here on some sort of temporary work visa, to be treated differently than children of Russian diplomats, in the sense that there's really no reason to believe that Ovi's allegiance to the US is somehow greater than that of his country's ambassador. And if that's the case with respect to non diplomatic persons with legal presence, it's not unfair to ask why it would be better for people without legal presence.

So again, I don't think much of the basis of this EO, but there's probably enough for the government lawyer tasked with defending it to not sweat sanctions too much given the rule 11 standard.

If children of “illegals” aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, what is the basis to expel them? To compel them to do anything, really?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Judge has already let the air out of the dipshit's first executive order, lol.

Live Updates: Trump’s Effort to Restrict Birthright Citizenship ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional,’ Judge Says​

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship to babies born on American soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and reverse decades of precedent.

In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that sued. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
Mr. Trump’s order, issued in the opening hours of his presidency, declared that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order also extended to babies of mothers who were in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers.

In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits to halt the so-called order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent has long interpreted the amendment — that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — applies to every baby born in the United States, with few exceptions.

In the case before Judge Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, the state attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona had argued that Mr. Trump’s order would deny rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born each year and leave some of them stateless. States would also lose federal funding for various assistance programs.

In their briefs, the states cite testimony from then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. In 1995, Mr. Dellinger told Congress that a law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and that even a constitutional amendment would “flatly contradict the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”

Federal government lawyers argued in the hearing that they should have the opportunity to provide a more complete briefing to the court because the executive order would not take effect until next month. The states responded that the administration’s order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs, and that births of new babies would have a cloud over them.
Judge Coughenour emphatically agreed with the states: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

A separate federal lawsuit filed by 18 other states and two cities is being considered in Massachusetts.
Show less

Yep. Unconstitutional.

 

[Aardvark86]

If children of “illegals” aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, what is the basis to expel them? To compel them to do anything, really?

a fair way of expressing it, though not entirely satisfying as one could ask the same question of foreign diplomats.

as i understand it, there is a little bit of archaic linguistics in play here, in that the phrase is sort of focused on a more 19th century mindset of 'who do you owe your allegiance to". We thought about those sorts of questions a little differently before about 1900.

 

[mnole03]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

1. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' language does have to mean something. And while initially focused on blacks in the us post civil war, it's pretty clear that it's not just that from the debates.
2. As i understand it, it's generally been construed to mean that it excludes people like ambassadors and their children.
3. But it's not crazy to ask whether it makes sense for the US born children of, say, Alex Ovechkin, who I assume is here on some sort of temporary work visa, to be treated differently than children of Russian diplomats, in the sense that there's really no reason to believe that Ovi's allegiance to the US is somehow greater than that of his country's ambassador. And if that's the case with respect to non diplomatic persons with legal presence, it's not unfair to ask why it would be better for people without legal presence.

So again, I don't think much of the basis of this EO (particularly if i'm sitting in the chair of a district judge), but there's probably enough for the government lawyer tasked with defending it to not sweat sanctions too much given the rule 11 standard.

They meant Indians. I’m sure there was discussion of foreign officials, too.

 

[Aardvark86]

They meant Indians. I’m sure there was discussion of foreign officials, too.

indians were indeed excluded by virtue of the clause, though that was later modified by statute. but part of xiv was also addressed to ambiguities associated with early post war acts that had AA naturalization pathways to them.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

1. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' language does have to mean something. And while initially focused on blacks in the us post civil war, it's pretty clear that it's not just that from the debates.
2. As i understand it, it's generally been construed to mean that it excludes people like ambassadors and their children.
3. But it's not crazy to ask whether it makes sense for the US born children of, say, Alex Ovechkin, who I assume is here on some sort of temporary work visa, to be treated differently than children of Russian diplomats, in the sense that there's really no reason to believe that Ovi's allegiance to the US is somehow greater than that of his country's ambassador. And if that's the case with respect to non diplomatic persons with legal presence, it's not unfair to ask why it would be better for people without legal presence.

So again, I don't think much of the basis of this EO (particularly if i'm sitting in the chair of a district judge), but there's probably enough for the government lawyer tasked with defending it to not sweat sanctions too much given the rule 11 standard.

For anyone to suggest that an attorney arguing these points should face sanctions, is absurd.

This is the United States, not the Soviet Union.

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

Translation for the dumbasses: A judge said Trump’s idea to stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. is like totally against the rules (unconstitutional). He blocked it for now. The 14th Amendment says all babies born in the U.S. are citizens, and the judge couldn’t believe* Trump’s lawyers thought this was okay. Lots of states and groups argued the order would hurt kids and take away important support. The judge agreed and said the rule doesn’t make sense. Other states are still fighting it too.

*

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

a fair way of expressing it, though not entirely satisfying as one could ask the same question of foreign diplomats.

I believe diplomats are covered by various treaties and the Geneva Convention, as well as the President’s powers under the constitution.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Student loan forgiveness?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Translation for the dumbasses: A judge said Trump’s idea to stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. is like totally against the rules (unconstitutional). He blocked it for now. The 14th Amendment says all babies born in the U.S. are citizens, and the judge couldn’t believe* Trump’s lawyers thought this was okay. Lots of states and groups argued the order would hurt kids and take away important support. The judge agreed and said the rule doesn’t make sense. Other states are still fighting it too.

*

Checks and Balances. They work.

 

[MuscoHawk]

This is one of the few things I agree with Trump on—birthright citizenship needs to go away. It’s being abused, bigly. The constitution needs to be amended.

However, you can’t strip citizenship from current citizens. This can’t be a retroactive thing. It should be implemented only once the amendment passes.

 

[Aardvark86]

For anyone to suggest that an attorney arguing these points should face sanctions, is absurd.

This is the United States, not the Soviet Union.

I don't think it's absurd, in that the position staked out here is, to say it very charitably, 'novel'. And people are rightfully passionate about these issues, because, let's face it, probably 75% of our collective parents got here this way and it's part of our fabric. But as i've said, the system is designed to allow you to take your shot and fail, including shots that entail dramatic changes in legal interpretations. And every one who decries that principle should think carefully about how some of the bedrock civil rights cases most of us know and love came to be: they were conceived and advanced by creative lawyers.

 

[Aardvark86]

I believe diplomats are covered by various treaties and the Geneva Convention, as well as the President’s powers under the constitution.

certainly true as to the process, but fundamentally, those treaties implicitly recognize that nation states have jurisdiction to exercise those powers. I don't think the jurisdictional theory or presumption would be that a nation state would have to admit them, or couldn't expel them, but for the treaties. the treaties just make it orderly.

 

[BioHawk]

I feel like some of these EOs are like lawsuits. You can sue anyone, for anything- doesn’t mean it will win?

That is definitely part of the plan. The majority of these would likely lose and lose badly in court. By flooding the air with so many of them they think some of these will slip through simply because there won't be enough money to stop them all. Force them to waste time and money on stuff like this while the executive order that makes Trump properties the sole provider of housing for all government travel sneaks through unchecked. (Just making something up but the ones they care about aren't the ones getting the spotlight right now)

 

[joelbc1]

It a high bar though. I don’t think attorneys making legitimate arguments are suddenly going to get swept up in a wave of sanctions.

But when you’re just filing bullshit….

Are you talking about “ol’ 1-62”?