"Blatantly unconstitutional"
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
Because we can’t just ignore the constitution, and doing so sets us up for disaster.
You think it’s a 50/50 toss-up that POTUS can modify the Constitution via EO? If that power is granted, there will be precious little we can count on from one administration to another.
Slavery didn't end with the Civil War. They created chain gangs and threw black men in jail for any reason - or no reason - to do the work. The Klan was created to keep them "in their place". They were prohibited from getting loans to build family wealth. And even when they overcame those odds and created pockets of prosperity, they were attacked, slaughtered, and burned out. See the Tulsa Massacre or the Wilmington Coup. The FHA and its precursor in the 1930's specifically forbid selling houses built with their loans to black families...some of those covenants can still be found in deeds today. Developers were required to build barriers between their neighborhoods and any black neighborhoods that adjoined them. The VA Bill...we're in the time of your father and grandfathers now, not ancient history...wouldn't provide loans to black veterans, no matter how honorable their service. Jim Crow laws prevented them from voting so there was no way to change things. Redlining caused neighborhoods to deteriorate. Modern urban planning deliberately and systematically routed highways through cities to cut black neighborhoods off. Today - thanks to all that came before...deliberately and systematically...a typical black family has 5% of the wealth of the typical white family. Call it economic slavery, if you like. There is a direct line from slavery in the south to modern times...it just morphed.
65 countries have some degree of birthright citizenship - 33 of them have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
As said byJudge 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
Is that kind of like Biden forgiving student loan debt? Except he admitted he couldn't do it but said he'd do it anyway? At least this order poses a question to be debated, something this judge apparently can't stomach happeningJudge 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
I was adopted so technically...nope. (At least not without going through a shit-ton of process).
(Just to throw that little curveball into the discussion.)
In my case, we have naturalization documents for both sides of the family,... Four generations back on one side, and three on the other,... One side would be adequate.
Setting aside my adoption, on one side, I have the DAR documentation (though that whole Samuel Miles "faithless elector" thingy might not play too well to some audiences today). On the other, I have a grandfather who spit chewing tobacco in his urine sample to avoid conscription in the austro hungarian army just before WWI. If thats not American ingenuity, I don't know what is.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,899
- 207,216
- 113
If you can show me the part of the Constitution dealing with college debt payments, I'll concede you made a good point.
Leaving aside the small point that King George believed he ruled by divine right…and about 1,000 other things; no you don’t have a point at all.
Design and promote your own plan to replace it, and then follow the process.
That is one of the things that astounds me about the support in the cult for Trump's EO. President Gavin Newsom issuing EOs should give them some pause.
The whole "modifying the constitution via executive order" thingy is a rhetorical straw man. At the end of the day, it doesn't take a genius to know that the president can't modify the constitution via an eo. Nor does it take a genius to understand that an eo will be defended - perhaps successfully, more likely unsuccessfully - first as reflecting an "interpretation" consistent with the constitution and secondarily as a "mere" operational directive that is consistent with either acts of congress or inherent executive authority. I happen to think this would fail on both counts, though candidly, the better "judicial" approach would probably be to strike it down based on the latter (eg, even assuming it's a plausible constitutional interpretation, it violates the major questions doctrine)
Kinda disagree with you here…executive orders the last few administrations especially are increasingly being used to circumvent congress, often because it’s unable/unwilling to fulfill its duties. Nixon would have been amazed at the stuff presidents have been allowed to do for example.
Trump, or any other president should not be able to conduct immigration policy via executive orders. If only because it’s a short term fix at best - the next POTUS could undo every single executive order from their predecessor if they’re so inclined.
I have them for one side of my family as well, but it sure would make things a lot more complicated for many of us without a ton of benefit to the country. We need more citizens. Birthrate is down.
The very act of 'owning' other human beings seems to be a de facto claim of supremacy, i.e., a 'divine right'.
Government makes hypocrites out of everyone.
I think we're actually in complete agreement sober.
Historically, executive orders were essentially 'operating instructions' to the executive agencies. They did not create rights and obligations. (Perhaps the biggest potential 'exceptions' to that are the EOs relating to affirmative action/MBE-WBE in federal contracting or some of the restrictions on foreign aid associated with abortion. And of course there was the steel seizure order back with truman.)
You are absolutely right that first Trump, then Biden, and now Trump again, have unfortunately fallen in love with the EO as a vehicle to try to do whatever they want in terms of substantive policy, when they can't get it done through the legislative process. But to my eye, the courts still generally view them as the more historically limited vehicles.
My point is simply that for an EO to stand, it has to be consistent with both statutory or inherent executive authority, AND the constitution. Historically, courts have generally tried to avoid resolving cases on constitutional grounds if a case can be disposed of on statutory grounds, and frankly, it would be nice if we got back to that a little bit. Here, what Trump has done strikes me at a minimum as the kind of thing that the legislature has been silent on despite its article i, sec.8, cl. 4 authority around naturalization and the ambiguity of the 'jurisdiction' language, and could/should fall under the major questions doctrine as something he can't simply act unilaterally on. I suppose some might say the legislature has no authority to do anything despite the 'jurisdiction' language - fair enough, and if that's the case, court could/should deal with the issue on constitutional grounds.
Last edited:
Your answer is more government to 'fix' the problem in order to atone for 'our' past sins, I guess.
There are some extremely brilliant black writers who feel free markets are the only way to give everyone the same opportunities.
No offense, but I'm gonna defer to the black gentlemen on this one.
Walter Williams adopts a similar view of the role of capitalism in defeating racism. He argues that only in a capitalist system, where economic gains are made through free market exchange and not by seeking political preferences and protections, can minorities make economic progress: “Free-market resource allocation, as opposed to allocation on political grounds, is in the interests of minorities and/or less preferred individuals. ... The market encompasses a sort of parity nonexistent in the political arena, where one person’s dollar has the same power as anyone else’s.”
Williams’ point is that a racist seller of course wishes to sell his produce; therefore, he will not reject black buyers as he values their dollars as much as the dollars of white buyers. Most sellers would not consider it worth losing the sale simply to be true to their racist beliefs. Even in the case of a racist seller who is willing to pay a price for his desire not to transact with other races, a point is likely to come where his costs mount to a degree that he no longer considers it worthwhile to continue rejecting sales purely on racist grounds. This explains why even in the segregated states, many whites entered into commercial transactions with blacks. Williams writes:
“The fact that some blacks were able to earn a comfortable living and indeed become prosperous — in both the antebellum South, in the face of slavery and grossly discriminatory laws, and in the North, where there was at best only weak enforcement of civil rights — gives strong testament to the power of the market as a friend to blacks.”
Williams defends “free markets and the profit motive” against the charge that they reduce economic opportunities for victims of racism. He argues that on the contrary, even disadvantaged people can enjoy an advantage in free markets, based on the principle that “customers prefer lower prices to higher prices, and businessmen prefer higher profits to lower profits.” For example, a disadvantaged person could choose to work for a lower wage than his competitors in the labor market and thereby avoid both unemployment as well as the need to rely on the charity or largesse of others.
Williams acknowledges that in the absence of mandatory pricing, some may be charged higher prices than others for the same product based on their race. For example, a landlord may charge a higher rent to black tenants than to white tenants. In this case, we can stipulate that it is unfair for anyone to have to pay a higher rent than someone else based purely on his race. However, we must go further and ask: Unfair compared to what? What are the available alternatives? Williams points out that a black tenant may prefer to pay a higher rent than his white neighbor if the only alternative is to go without housing altogether. While the state can seek to equalize everyone’s rental payments and can even seek to force landlords to rent to all comers regardless of race, the state cannot force people to build or supply housing for rent, nor can the state itself undertake to house the entire population to “protect” them from having to encounter a racist landlord. Even the Soviet Union at the height of its power, when the state owned most of the housing stock and undertook to construct housing for the entire population, could not achieve that.
The risk of suffering unfairness in a free market must therefore be weighed against the hazards of marching down the path to communism in a misguided attempt to create “fair” conditions for everyone. In an argument echoed by Thomas Sowell in “The Quest for Cosmic Justice,” Williams argues that sound economic policy cannot be derived from a utopian desire to promote fairness for everyone: For example, it may be “unfair” that anyone works for less than $20 an hour, but it does not follow that working for that sum should be prohibited. Nor is it “unfair” to work for less than someone else is prepared to work for. Minimum wage legislation may seem “fair” as it guarantees that nobody earns below the set wage, but it raises the overall level of unemployment, which leaves the most disadvantaged out of work altogether. As Williams puts it, the real minimum wage is zero. His view is that “economic theory as such cannot answer questions of fairness. However economic theory can predict the effects of not permitting some people to charge lower prices for what they sell and higher prices for what they buy. ... They will be worse off than otherwise would be the case.”
De facto supremacy isn’t at all the same thing as a divine right.
Heck, you had some people who genuinely believed they were doing black people a favor by making them slaves.
Apparently you don’t know the definition of hyperbole. Lawyer, heal thyself.
If we cant agree to have a conversation about this like adults I'm not going to engage you in conversation.
I don't understand why people on here think they can say something to you that would 100% get your ass kicked were you to say it to me to my face.
100%. On this we agree.
Because, in person, that bitch say this crap to my face, we are throwing down. Like right now. I'm not going to assault him but if we agree to square up, I'm there.
Nope. It was your people.
Meet the Colorado Republican who is the lead plaintiff in the case aimed at keeping Trump off the ballot
Colorado will make headlines across the world as the nation's highest court will hear a case challenging Donald's Trump eligibility to run for office in the Centennial State. The lead plaintiff in the case is a former state lawmaker.
www.cbsnews.com
Colorado will make headlines across the world this week as the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case challenging Donald's Trump eligibility to run for office in the Centennial State. The lead plaintiff in the case is a 91-year-old former state lawmaker and diehard Republican. Norma Anderson says she never dreamed she would be part of an effort to keep her own party's leading candidate off the ballot. That is, until Jan. 6, 2021.
Lol that a Trump supporter getting offended by “locker room talk” or claiming you only want to talk like adults.
You support a vulgar child.
You're acting like a child.
Maybe not where you are from but where I come from, you accuse another man of sucking off another man you get your ass beat. Maybe come up with a slightly less offensive insult next time.
I may be a professional in my daily life but I am not above mixing it up, when necessary, to restore order and decency to the universe. Just so we are clear.
What your reply does illustrate though is how anger undergirds almost all of the libs replies on here. Most of you, given the chance accordingly, resort to base instinct and vomit out every little thing youve wanted to say since the first Tuesday in November.
Don't forget the newest iteration of slavery/oppression - mass incarceration.
You could be better.
Or you could choose to be exactly like the person you despise.
It's quite telling that you chose the latter.
So...perhaps...you could point out previous EO's by previous presidents that were literally unconstitutional on their face? Has a previous president banned all gun sales to private citizens who are not current "militia"? To "test" the 2nd amendment? And what happens if the current SC says the president can subvert the very clear language of the Constitution? What's next? Major questions? That's the SC talking. They can most certainly undermine their own past rulings. This SC is a prime example.
