Perhaps we need this?
It may be the right time for this type of confrontation.
As the Trump administration prepared to challenge a ruling against its executive order on refugees and travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, experts said the US had been brought to the brink of a full-blown constitutional crisis.
“This is an epic confrontation between the presidency and the constitution,” says Marci Hamilton, a constitutional lawyer and scholar of religion at the University of Pennsylvania.
Especially for this reason
At a hearing on Friday in federal court in Alexandria, judge Leonie Brinkema said the executive order had caused chaos. She also sent a warning to Trump.
“There’s no question the president of the United States has almost – almost – unfettered power over foreign policy and border issues,” she said.
“But this is not ‘no limit’.”
Like the use of the AUMF by both G.W. Bush and B.H. Obama as basically a carte blanche
When I teach presidential power, the first thing I ask my students is to imagine a different President in office. If they support the current President and believe those who oppose him are doing so for partisan or otherwise illegitimate reasons, they should visualize a President whom they completely distrust. Conversely, if they dislike the current President, they should conceive of the President in power as someone they support and that those opposing him
are acting illegitimately. This exercise is helpful, I believe, for focusing
attention on the underlying constitutional issues rather than upon the wisdom,
or lack thereof, of a particular President’s policies.
Two hundred years later, any suggestion that Congress is twice as powerful
as the executive would be deemed ludicrous. Particularly in the areas of
national security and foreign affairs, the Presidency has become the far more powerful branch. In 2006, for example, a new Congress was elected based in large part on the desire of the American people to get out of an unpopular war. Yet, the President was able to use his authority to continually out maneuver the newly-elected Congress and pursue a war that even many of those in his own party opposed.
After all SCOTUS has become naught but a political football as the screams by the party faithful can attest, if they win the Presidency they get SCOTUS! Judges picked to satisfy partisan needs rather than constitutional ones.
I have long argued for restrictions of executive power and the counter arguments follow the third quote so closely/inversely as to be not funny.
I quote the AUMF because it basically allows any President to conduct unending wars.
In short, the 2001 authorization grants the president a congressional stamp-of-approval to use force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and those who harbored them. In other words, against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Today, a decade and a half later, the Obama administration argues that the authorization continues to apply to U.S. military actions in Afghanistan. Also, that it applies in Iraq, in Syria, and beyond — including the ongoing air campaign in Libya, against ISIS — a group that did not exist 15 years ago.
Now we have Trump with the same power, just say terror loud enough then the country concerned doesn't matter.
Hence we come to Presidential Diktats [memoranda, orders whatever] where the current occupant and his little Nazi helpers think that is how government is supposed to work; by Presidential decree. He seems to get mightily upset when contradicted by the courts.
I keep telling the party faithful that one day nasty shit like the Patriot Act would be in other hands along with the whole security/spy apparatchik. Their support or detestation of such legislation is purely based on the party of the occupant of the White House. Pathetic. If one thing history has repeatedly taught us is that we should expect the worst from our leaders.
Perhaps it is time for a real constitutional battle, if the President wins this one then expect many more to follow.
Just a thought
Comments
In this case of a muslim ban...
...I think Trump would have gotten away with it if he had been just a smidge intelligent. But he only knows fu policy and diplomacy, so his EO blew up. We'll see if it continues to fail on appeal.
Trump is like a kid with a new batch of Christmas toys. He gets to play with it until it breaks, then he has a tantrum and moves onto the next one.
So many shattered baubles.
Knowing Trump is will be...
...held on a Friday night, broadcast on the WWE Network and involve massive publicity, girls in bikinis and a steel cage...
I want my two dollars!
Sounds about right
@Ken in MN
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
I think I am going to hate that Bitch as much as Rachel Maddow
@Alligator Ed But possibly not as
But possibly not as much as Joy Ann Reid. (Her twitter account is full of the worst kind of vile McCarthyism directed at anyone who doesn't bow down to the Putin-hacked-the-election meme, and "berniebros", with a side swipe of some not-so-thinly-veiled anti-semitism aimed at Bernie, comparing him to Steve Bannon fercrissakes.)
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
Reid
is the absolute worst. There's nothing worse than a stupid vile person who gets egged on by other stupid people. She thinks she's righteous, but she's just a reactionary fool. Her fall will be hard and I will enjoy it.
If I'm stuck with Trump and his fundamentalist,
I'm for blowing it all up. Bring it on.
I really think it (the deep state and political parties) has to be destroyed before we can reclaim and rebuild. They will never go willingly.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Kicking and screaming and probably ruining the economy
out of sheer spite.
As if the economy is so great
as it is.
dfarrah
It is not yet flambeed
True
Hedge Fund managers are not selling apples on the street yet. So in that sense, I agree with you.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Steve Bannon is carrying the torches.
bing!
Exactly.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I emailed the judge
to find out why he didn't do the same for BO's EO.
Does anyone here know why?
dfarrah
Which one?
Robart.
Haven't heard back from him yet.
dfarrah
Maybe the judge is a Democrat.
That's likely on the West Coast. It's all about your Party rather than the Law or the Constitution.
I'm still having trouble understanding why someone in Syria has a Constitutional Right to enter the USA, but someone in Mexico does not.
I can understand if Congress has passed a alaw allowing unfettered immigration up to a quota. Then Trump is violating US Law, not the Constitution. But as the media has reported it, the ME immigrants Constitution Rights were somehow violated by being denied immigration. That's a different kettle of fish from violating US immigration law, which might be an impeachable offense. Still, the injured party would be the US Congress, not the individual would be immigrants.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Where is it in the
Constitution that non-citizens have the right to enter the USA?
(and I'm not talking about green cards and visas here, I'm just talking about people who have no legal exception that allows them to enter the US.)
dfarrah
That's my point!
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Yeah,
I don't get it.
But we are, apparently, in some sort of constitutional crisis....everyone says so.
dfarrah
According to an
immigrant advocate, she is concerned about people who can't 'come home.'
She breathlessly explained "it may be weeks, it may be months" before the issue is resolved.
And the ban is only 3 months.
dfarrah
But "home" is there, not here!
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
That judge, Robart, or Robar, is a Republican
appointed by GWB. And I believe there's a clause somewhere in the Constitution about a President having a duty not to impeded immigration. Remember now, back in the day "we" were importing people from all over Europe to come here and make money for our plutocrats, so when I read that about the Constitution and thought about it that makes sense.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I don't remember anything like that!
But you may be right. Can you cite a clause?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
There is a difference
between immigration and refugee status or seeking asylum. I think we should all be doing our homework about the difference.
Which Obama EO was challenged in his courtroom?
When was this?
I don't recall a case ever brought before this judge on any of Obama's Executive Orders, so the answer to your question is probably because there was no such case for him to rule on.
I did not say
that BO was challenged.
From what I have read, BO had a six month ban similar to Trump's.
My question is, why wasn't BO challenged in the courts?
dfarrah
Was there a case before him
on Obama's executive orders? If no case, a judge cannot rule on anything.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
That is my question.....
where are the court orders for restrictions that happened in prior administrations that were similar to Trump's EO?
dfarrah
Google and see
if anyone filed a lawsuit challenging his executive orders. Not sure which one you have any particular interest in, as he signed more than a few.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Turns out there was
I followed your suggestion and it took 2 seconds to find one:
So President Obama did have at least one EO challenged, and the count ruled against him. I don't think he threw a twitter fit about it, but I could be wrong. Heh
Interesting.
But how does a court order denying BO's EO that expanded rights serve as a precedent to a court order that halts Trump's restrictions ?
Am I reading backwards?
Or are you saying that the precedent was set that a judge could deny an EO?
dfarrah
That is what the judge said
The judge cited it as a legal precedent for the court to halt a presidential executive order, if said order is challenged in court and the judge(s) determine it should be halted, presumably because they think it is illegal or unconstitutional.
The article you linked to below answers your questions about why Obama's "similar" order wasn't halted by a court order, because first, obviously, it wasn't challenged in court. That may be partly because it wasn't publicized, but even if it had been I doubt it would have been stopped, although it's possible, and it did do harm. At least one person died in Iraq because of it.
But it wasn't the same or even similar to what Trump did. Just a few glaring differences, including...
It applied to only one country and only to new refugee applications, they didn't detain and deport people who were already approved and in transit; already approved refugees continued to be admitted throughout the entire time; it didn't retroactively revoke already approved visas, legal residents, and immigration applications; it did not extend beyond refugees to ban all travel and short-term visitors, and it was done in response to a specific incident that had identified a problem in the refugee vetting process, it was not "preemptive" political posturing after promising for a year to ban an entire population of people from the United States based on their religion.
Trump made the mistake of bragging for his entire campaign that he would ban Muslims, then said they would favor non-Muslim immigration applicants because Christians from those countries need to be let in, and his spokesman Ghouliani admitted on TV that the purpose of the EO was to fulfill Trump's Muslim ban promise "legally" -- oops. Trying to paint it as anything else now is unbelievable. Literally. So they are openly engaging in religious discrimination, just as Trump said he would do, and that is generally frowned upon in this country. Oh yes, and religious discrimination is unconstitutional. Oops again. But Trump isn't concerned about that. Like he said...
Trump is well aware that banning people from even visiting this country based on their religion is unconstitutional, but he "views it differently." It seems a lot of people and the courts so far don't agree with him. But Trump will keep appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court and may yet prevail, who knows. SCOTUS isn't exactly stellar on protecting people from discrimination, constitutional or not. We had legal slavery, then legal racial segregation for decades, and legal marriage discrimination until very recently. They may yet give Trump his Muslim ban. Time will tell.
Yes, I know the article I
linked lists 'differences.'
dfarrah
So the constitution doesn't give us the right to commit suicide
however, murder is acceptable. RE: The elderly traveler who was detained, became ill and died; all due to the ban. That is murder.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I am talking about BO's
order related to immigration.
I found an article, by Politicfact (so take with a grain)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-tr...
From the above:
In 2011, Obama’s state department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months, though it didn’t disclose the policy like Trump did, ABC reported in 2013.
Trump’s ban, meanwhile, is more preemptive.
Second, the scope of the two policies is slightly different. Obama’s 2011 order put a pause on refugee processing, whereas Trump’s halt in entries applies to all non-U.S. visitors.
Per the article, Trump's claim that it is similar to BO's is rated "mostly false."
I guess that depends on how people define 'similar.' Liberals who support BO blindly will nod at anything he does.
It is interesting that BO didn't disclose the action he took.
But, even then, the larger question is why Saudis have not been banned (or were they, after 9-11?)
IMO, from either side, the hysteria is a joke. Countries have every right to restrict entrants to their countries.
dfarrah
I completely agree with your point that
But your statement that,
is true within the law. We are a signatory to the 1967 UN Protocol on providing asylum to refugees, as far as I know, and so that agreement is part of our law.
I don't think a President can just say, "I think all people from a particular set of countries are to be considered a threat to our national security until proven otherwise," and then just ignore our legal responsibility to provide refuge.
No we don't.
Torch the Constitution over the exclusion of (what maybe 50,000) potential immigrants? Do you have any understanding of the History of Immigration to this country?
And let's not even talk about the 19th century.
Not that any of these exclusions/deportations/incarcerations should be morally or even Constitutionally permissible, but to pull down the entire framework of our government over a relatively minor Presidential action shows a complete lack of historical perspective and understanding of the consequences such a destruction would entail.
Don't be a sucker. The people arguing to rip up the Constitution are not your friends nor the friends of Middle Eastern refugees. They are playing on your Trump hatred to create any pretext to remove the last legal impediments to full on corporate dictatorship,
Or would you rather sacrifice the Bill of Rights so that the families of a few thousand Syrian mercenaries can live peacefully under the tender mercies of our financial overlords?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
You gotta wonder
what these people are doing.
The repubs already want a constitutional convention as it is, well before this 'crisis.'
And they probably have the numbers to get it going.
Who is behind all of the hysteria? Is it really driven by establishment types (dem or repub) who would like to blow up the constitution?
dfarrah
Yes.
and a lot of well meaning but tragically naive people are falling for it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
The bubble is getting very stretched
Giving the banksters free reign again is going to make a pop in that bubble.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I See the Same Focus, NHK.
- Great comment.
The goal is to give self governance a black eye and usher in a "benevolent corporate dictatorship" to replace the "failed experiment of democracy".
First time I've really seen it spat out in brass tacks. I'm with you, NHK.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Only one answer
Abolish the presidency.
You mean in favor of a parliamentary system?
You know, the one that brought the UK Maggie Thatcher and Tony "I'm with Bill" Blair.
No I didn't mean that.
If you would like to see video of the hearing before the Judge
who ruled against the Trump ban, the video is available here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trum...
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Well, the original executive order
is limited to a handful of countries for a limited period. But if all goes well, they'd expand that list of countries and the time period will become indefinite...forever, basically.
This was the tip of the spear.
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future
The judge who issued the injunction
Is a George W. Bush appointee:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/04/meet-the-b...
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future
For the record
This doesn't constitute a constitutional crisis. Trump issued executive order. Judge issued TRO against enforcement (see my post up-thread where you can see video of the oral argument before that District Judge, a Bush appointee). Trump DOJ is appealing order to 9th Cir. Court of Appeals who refused to stay TRO (i.e., delay enforcement), and then asked parties to prepare briefs on why or why not they should uphold or reverse Dist. Judge's ruling granting TRO. Government is abiding by TRO for time being.
If Trump ordered people not to obey Judge's ruling, that would be a constitutional crisis, but we aren't there yet.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
The various injunctions block only a portion of the order
The injunctions prevent persons from the named countries that have valid visas from being denied entry into the US. They leave intact a number of provisions of the executive order. I suggest people read the actual EO because it is difficult to get accurate, unbiased reporting on this (and on most things having to do with the Trump administration). There is no ban on Muslims, no restrictions on people from most predominantly Muslim countries. There is a substantial amount of injustice in that the affected countries are mostly countries that the previous US administrations have royally screwed, and therefore refugee status is warranted in many cases for people from these countries.
Exactly, SD. No Constititutional crisis, only bs.
Trump issued an Executive Order. A court said his EO is unconstitutional. He's appealing the court decision to a higher court. This is standard operating procedure. This is not George Wallace (no relation) standing in the door of a school to prevent integration in defiance of a court decision.
Alternative facts about Trump--and from a professor, no less. Somehow, I think I know who Prof. Marci supported for POTUS in November.
This, too, is nonsense:
Nothing about seeking a stay from a court on an emergency basis creates a constitutional crisis. This, too, is SOP, even if the D of J chose not to seek one. As long as the Executive is recognizing the proper role of the Judicial Branch in this, there is zero Constitutional crisis. If the Executive had simply disobeyed the order, that might be a Constitutional problem.
I don't have a lot of use for Trump, but I don't have a lot of use for people who know better talking nonsense, either.
As an aside, The Guardian mentions something about Trump violating the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd be interested to know precisely which provision of the 14th amendment Trump is alleged to have violated.
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
Probably referring to Equal Protection
and Due Process clauses for people who reside in US under a Visa or green card, or people who traveled but whose visas to return was still effective until ban.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Section 1 of the 14th amendment applies to states
and POTUS is federal government, not state. The due process clause that binds the federal government is in Amendment 5 in the bill of rights.
See also https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag3_user.html
Hmmm
I went for the shoot from the hip analysis. Never a good thing.
Ok, here is text of 5th amendment:
TH US Supreme Court in the Bolling case held that equal protection is subsumed within the Due Process clause of the Fifth amendment. So, for purposes of the 5th amendment re: Trump's executive order, the question to be resolved is whether the 5th's due process clause, including equal protection rights, applies to individual foreign aliens who hold visas, whether or not those people have ever entered the US?
I would argue it does not apply to people who have not yet been issued visas, as they have no inherent right under the constitution to be granted entry to the US. Numerous past immigration cases decided by federal courts, including SCOTUS, have supported the power of Congress and President to ban immigration of people from other countries or deny the issuance of a visa for any or no reason at all.
However, once a right has been extended - here a foreign national in the form of a visa granting entry onto the country - the question becomes murkier. Most courts have held that people currently in US, lawfully or not, are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law. The issue is whether the government can rescind the rights granted to visa holders who have not yet entered the country or have left but still have a valid visa granting them the right to re-entry, without violating equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth.
The next question is who can assert those rights? Can states assert them or only the individuals affected? That is the claim at the heart of the TRO granted by the Dist. Judge in the state of Washington.
The states of Washington and Minnesota asserted those rights on behalf of individual visa holders and/or (I believe this is their argument based on watching the video of the hearing on their motion for a TRO) people granted refugee status but who were denied admission into the country by the Trump ban. The states asserted the rights of the visa holders, and people granted refugee status pursuant to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) based on two grounds:
1) The states ability to stand in for visa holders and approved refugees under the parens patriae doctrine, which they claim applies to any resident of the state citizen or not, including visa holders. They also 2) asserted standing to sue under their right as states to claim harm on their own behalf as a result of the ban based on injury to the their territorial sovereignty rights (here loss of income from foreign nationals who were college students as well as foreign residents who would pay taxes in the states and various other costs in which state funds were expended on behalf of travel for visa holder and refugees paid for by the states).
Both of these are questions (i.e., standing under the the parens patriae doctrine and the under harm to state's territorial sovereignty) are ones that have not been decided before, as far as I know, in the contest of foreign nationals who hold visas permitting them to enter and reside in the US and refugees already approved for entry under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
Here is the DOJ's memorandum brief opposing the TRO before the Disrict Court in Washington if you are inclined to see what arguments they likely will be making on appeal before the 9th Circuit after the Dist. Court judge granted the TRO.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/04/17-35105%20moti...
Needless to say, they claim the states have no right to challenge the President's authority on executive orders regarding immigration matters under Federal Law, nor do the states have standing to challenge Trump's order and raise those issues as to violations of due process and equal protection, as well as the claimed 1st amendment establishment clause violation, on behalf of individual refugees and existing visa holders, under either the parens patriae doctrine or the states' territorial sovereignty claim.
And here is the written copy of the TRO that supports the Judges ruling from the bench:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/03/17-141_TRO_orde...
These issues are the ones to be decided on appeal before the 9th Circuit:
1) Whether the states had standing to assert these Fifth and First amendment rights on behalf of existing visa holders and approved refugees and themselves as sovereigns, and
2) Whether the TRO was justified under the standards in the 9th circuit for determining whether an injunction may be issued against Trump and the Federal Government before a final decision on the merits of the case by the courts.
The alternative standard still employed in the 9th Circuit requires equity highly favoring the plaintiffs (in this case the states) along with raising a serious question going to the merits in order to preserve the "status quo" before a full trial can be held and the case adjudicated. The Judge in his TRO stated that both standards for granting an injunction were met by the states.
In the meantime, people who have been issued visas (and possibly approved refugees under USRAP?) before the ban was stayed are being allowed to enter the country until the 9th Circuit reaches a decision on appeal of the the TRO granted by Dist. Judge James L. Robart.
I hope that satisfies your curiosity regarding the legal questions involved.
The equal protection and due process questions (as well as the 1st Amendment establishment clause issue) are more complicated and would require far more analysis than I have time for in the reply. Suffice it to say, Judge Robarts found that those claims were valid and ones on which the states were likely to succeed on the merits. He did not detail in his written order granting the TRO his specific reasoning for that finding.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
@Steven D
America was already recognized as being lawless.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140915/09500928521/canadian-news-out...
Although the phrasing here is a little more direct and I kinda like it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-24/canada-warns-its-citizens-not-t...
And now there's a global push to remove physical or any control of personal currency from citizens everywhere, by forcing a 'cashless society' allowing hackers/internet/power outage/criminal banks to lose/seize every penny any/everyone owns, with Obama apparently giving US banks carte blanche to seize depositor's money every time they recklessly crash themselves...
And there's no point in Americans voting for actual representatives in rigged elections, especially because now Homeland InSecurity has removed elections from any citizen/independent oversight or investigation.
Boycott all criminal corporations literally for your lives - that's one thing that might actually help, in this final looting phase.
Cool that this just started playing, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog
Muse - Uprising [Official Video]
Edit: I had an impression that the 2 & 1/2 billion cash stolen was, at that point, total, not just what was stolen specifically from Canadians, as seems to be shown by the CBC article I finally found. But the point remains in their final paragraph, below.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-t-charge-you-...
Doesn't protect Americans or Canadian and other tourists, does it? Although corporations are, no doubt, still considered persons having property and other protections under law.
When police are 'legally' allowed to rob citizens and tourists and the fact of them having any legal protections can be argued against under 'law', that ain't law.
Yes, there's room to further deteriorate under Trump, but maybe not all that much anymore.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Thank you so much, Steven D, for all that work,
Thank you so much, Steven D, for all that work, but my comment was considerably simpler and much more specific.
Part of my first reply to you
My second reply to you was:
That Cornell article to which I linked speaks of the 5th, which applies to the federal government, subsuming (whatever that means) part of the 14th, which applies to the states (adopted almost a hundred years after the 5th, but arguing with the Supremes on a message board about the Constitution is pointless.) And of the Bolling case. I was not questioning any of that.
However, even if the 5th subsumes the 14th, you would still allege that Trump violated the fifth. You don't allege that he violated something that, by its own language, applies only to states (state governments and their "instrumentalities").
In all, I still don't know precisely which provision of the 14th Trump is alleged to have violated, which is what I said I wanted to know. IMO, anyone who writes about Constitutional cases for a publication like The Guardian should have explained that.
Even though my question stands, I very much appreciate all your effort. It's just great to have something like your post on a board. Thanks again.
Trump is alleged to have violated the Fifth
You were right to say the 14th amend. is not the applicable one here, but the fifth since this is action by the federal government.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Thanks! The Guardian article cited violations of the 14th,
among other violations. That is what prompted by comment.
People who report on legal matters for a publication like The Guardian are supposed to know some basics, like the 14th am., by its own terms, applies to states. So, if they say the claims against a POTUS include violations of the 14th, they should add at least a few explanatory words in a parenthetical.
Look at all the painstaking work you did and you are not getting paid to get it right. They are. (My frustration with media is great.)
Again, great post. Thank you.
@HenryAWallace
Makes you kinda wonder if that misattribution of the applicable legal basis was planned to discredit the grounds for protest with people who might then not look further? That's the sort of thing that has been done a lot, misrepresent things, mix truth with lies/disinformation, in polluting industry and political propaganda, that being exactly what we've been dealing with, propagated by the corporate media.
Edit: since the check and balance system has been corrupted, likely only public demand will call for justice of any kind - and The People do outnumber the Greeds by far. No public outcry, no chance of any legal restraint being imposed or of any positive change...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Well, When You're the Washington Generals, and the Refs Are in
the Globetrotter's pocket, your opponent can showboat with impunity -- traveling? Never heard of it.
Pretty soon your pants are around your ankles and you're lying in a pretzel on the floor. Kind of hard to lead from that position.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I think this position, while appealing and popular, is both
inaccurate and detrimental. Edit: reply to @blueslide
Trump's not the slickest fish in the can (rough edges and bluster, much?), but it's foolhardy to underestimate his basic intelligence and canny sense of his audience. Nor do we know who "runs" him, as all presidents are run by factions of TPTB. The man is methodically checking off items on the list of things he said he'd do, basically by fiat via Executive Branch overreach thanks to unitary executive powers enlarged by his predecessors, including Obama--the constitutional scholar.
It's necessary, I think, to stow the anger we feel, knowing that Bernie would have won, and imagine Obama being so methodical about ticking off his campaign pledges instead of abandoning them with whiplash speed. Then look at who's fundraising and organizing "resistance" (and "Resistance" with that capital letter that references acts of courage while suggesting yet again that Trump et al. are Hitler and Nazis, a tidy PR feat in one word).
Before I left TOP in the Great Exodus, I several times made this point: that the president has extensive powers to act without Congress if he has the will, through enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of existing laws and regulations, agency appointments, and of course, executive orders, though EOs are vulnerable to being overturned easily by a successor. If they're popular, however, EOs become more difficult to nullify. Whenever Hillary fans dismissed Bernie as selling puppies and rainbows because he'd be hamstrung with a Republican Congress--as they claimed Obama was--I made this point. And was greeted with ridicule, along with defense of Obama's multiple failures to act, excused by an obstructionist Congress.
Perhaps the most important time to have stopped this exec overreach was, as noted by La Feminista, with Bush II and AUMF. Bernie was one of few who vocally opposed it. The purported opposition party--Democrats--didn't do it. Most Dems joined in the flag-waving and browbeating of War Is Not the Answer demonstrators and supported the Orwellian-named Patriot Act.
This could indeed be just the time for a constitutional crisis. But in today's environment, with all that the Democrats allowed to happen in government and even cheered, the outcome of such a crisis is not at all clear.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
Executive overreach is here to stay, I fear.
The money people found that controlling one person in the Oval Office is much easier than controlling 535 in Congress, plus one in the Oval Office. When Trump was elected, Republicans made a lot of noise about Article I (Congressional) powers being a priority (as opposed to Presidential powers). So far, I'm not seeing it with Trump, but it's still early in his term.
Congress loves EO's
This congress does anyway. They don't have to take the heat for the crap that they want. Let Trump be the whipping boy and when the right has what they want, then they'll impeach him leaving Mr. Whitebread, Pence.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I don't know about impeachment, but I've certainly
been wrong before when making predictions. For example, the other evening, I happened upon a post of mine (on another board)agreeing with down ticket Republicans who had expressed the fear that then presumptive nominee Trump would hurt down ticket Republicans. Instead, they had historic wins. I was also wrong predicting on this board that Hillary would win in a landslide. Much earlier, I had predicted on another board that she would lose. I should have stuck with my original assessment!
@HenryAWallace
What with all of the voter suppression and other electoral cheating going on between the halves of the Two-Faced Trade-Off Party, maybe it was just Their Turn to enact what TPTB wanted?
Your guess might well have been dead on in reality but, as the Sane Progressive pointed out, we'll never really be able to know who actually won any US election on actual votes.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Well, I guessed two very different things.
(Actually, it was more of an assessment than a guess.) I had to have been wrong on one and right on the other. As it was, my first thought was correct. I even had at least one of the right reasons: Hillary did not draw enough Democrats to the polls. Obama drew millions more. I had more considerations than that, but this is not the time to go over it in detail.
Yes, she drew enough Democrats to the polls to win the popular vote, but that is not how Presidential elections are won. Outside blue states, she was not a draw, maybe even a repellent.
However, at the time I made my first decision, probably in 2013, I did not know who would be the Republican nominee. By the time I landed on this board, around June 2016, I knew about the crass lunatic who is now our President. I thought sure defeating him would bring people of all parties to the polls to vote for Hillary, even if she was uninspiring and disliked, or for a new party candidate--anybody but Trump. That is where I erred. I should have stuck with my first assessment.
@HenryAWallace
What with all of the voter suppression and other electoral cheating going on between the halves of the Two-Faced Trade-Off Party, maybe it was just Their Turn to enact what TPTB wanted?
Your guess might well have been dead on in reality but, as the Sane Progressive pointed out, we'll never really be able to know who actually won any US election on actual votes.
This keeps showing as the essay reply? And had this multiple times this evening...
Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Additionally, a 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Edit: lol, the system apparently did get the first one through and, smiling, it then, fell dead?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I could not agree more Ellen North.
That is the reason that I wrote this essay: http://caucus99percent.com/content/time-re-fight-most-recent-battle-read...
I've been getting that message today, too, including when I tried to save a batch of edits I'd made to an essay I'm drafting. I have no idea why, but it is frustrating.
@HenryAWallace
Thanks! I'd seen that essay and thread before and appreciated the opportunity to peruse it again.
All I can say is that private parties have no business controlling the electoral choice of the public, and that if they're held to bear no responsibility for engaging in democratic behaviour in the democratic processes, then they should be appropriately also held as being too irresponsible a Party to be involved in the electoral process in any manner other than that of a private club, with no possibility of adversely impinging on the lives and rights of others.
Edited for my trademark, the typical typo-ed letter... that, and the forehead dents I put in my desk...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
It's easier to predict the outcomes of sporting events!
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Funny you should say that.
Yesterday, I spoke with someone living outside New England who had a Super Bowl party Sunday for mostly Patriots' fans. Everyone but his girlfriend left before the start of the fourth quarter.
Question
I'm no constitutional scholar, but is this really a constitutional crisis?
That seems overblown to me. He made an executive order and didn't a federal judge strike it down? Crisis averted? Perhaps I'm confused.
A crisis to me is like if instead of Paul Ryan we had Arnold Schwarzenegger as Speaker. Pence and Trump are taken out simultaneously and the next person in line would be the Speaker, which would be the Terminator, who isn't a natural born citizen. Of course I imagine they would go down to the next person in line, but that would seem more like a crisis to me.
Somewhere along the line
I think the Postmaster General is in eligible. Then perhaps Surgeon General.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I am not a Constitutional scholar, either,
Strife Delivery.
However, following normal steps in a normal judicial process is not a Constitutional crisis. A President defying a court order might be a Constitutional crisis, but Trump has not done that.
Not long after Tim Russert passed, Arnold said that Russert had promised Arnold, "If you win the if the gubernatorial election, "we" will get the Constitution amended." (Meaning the "natural born citizen" requirement for Presidents) Arnold said, "I won the election, but he never got the Constitution amended." (Despite the quotation marks, these may not be exact words as I am going by memory.)
Given what the Constitution says expressly, I think they would have to, as you said, just go to the next office in line after Speaker, which is Secretary of State. If that were someone like Kissinger or Albright, we'd just have to go to the next one, until we found someone Constitutionally qualified.
There might be a court case, but I don't know that it would be a Constitutional crisis--unless someone tried to inaugurate Arnold, Hank or Mad. I think a crisis would occur if a member of the Executive Branch is flaunting a proper action or mandate of Congress or the Judiciary. We came close to a Constitutional crisis over Obama's red line in Syria, but, after Boehner and 100 members of Congress challenged him over taking military action without a Congressional vote, Obama backed down. http://caucus99percent.com/content/did-obama-draw-red-line-syrian-sand-d...
Or, as Adlai Stevenson might have said, Obama was eyeball to eyeball with Congress and Obama "blinked."
Of course, he ultimately did take military action, but apparently Congress was okay with it. The Constitution requires a vote, not a private deal between the Republican Speaker and the President, but why quibble, as long as they're happy? /sarcasm.