The arguments against the long-established definition are the purest of white smoke rings eminating from the butts of reactionary fooles and soulless lawyers. But for the moment, that's irrelevant. We are beginning the inital wave of max conservative hubris, aka "who's gonna stop me". The system will route all this into the courts, while the administration continues to round up and expel or confine the intended targets, Latinos in the US. It will be instructive to see if any injunctions pausing this effort are issued, or obeyed. In the end, a year or 2 from now, will SCOTUS uphold the existing definition, or call this another "official act" beyond review? This is one of many places that decide how much friction there will be in our slide down from the shining city on a hill.
I think "disobeying the Constitution" is not a criminal court matter, but maybe an impeachable High Crime. Trump has no authority to sign the order and should not have signed it. But the main thing is the order itself is unconstitutional and hence invalid. Congress couldn't codify it into law, either, it would have to be passed as an Amendment.
Far as I know, that's the decision from Trump v. United States, aka the Nixon Rule. The decision simply says the President has absolute immunity for any "official act" he takes. What is an "official act" asks somebody in the back. That was deliberately left completely undefined, so it is whatever SCOTUS says when it comes before them. Note this does NOT apply to minions carrying out the order (so far) but that's what pardons are for.
Yes, that was my immediate reaction when I first saw this asshole pseudo-argument several years ago: a thought experiment in which a bunch of "illegal" aliens set up an encampment on the outskirts of some city, and proceed to deal illegal drugs and stolen goods; and, golly gee, the poor pathetic American government, as well as the state and its local governments, is powerless to do anything about it, because this little colony is not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I am not a lawyer, and therefore have never heard such a totally stupid pseudo-argument advanced.
Also of note is that, in recent years, the USA (via the IRS) has made life difficult for a group of "accidental Americans" (as they have been referred to here in the Netherlands). These are those who were born in the USA of foreign parents, or born outside the USA of American parents, and thus by birthright US citizens.
These "accidental" citizens were then required to file appropriate tax paperwork or risk penalties (including the loss of their bank accounts - in the land where they live and are actually citizens) based on their discovered citizenship. Even if - as in some cases - they had *never* so much as set foot in the USA. For some people this turned into a nightmare scenario with multiple "catch-22" points.
There is also “an entire literature” supporting the sovereign citizen movement. And another “entire literature,” similarly efficacious, that says if I step into a wardrobe, I can become king of Narnia.
I have "an entire literature" of Montgomery Ward catalogs supporting my right to spend money on stuff, but I'm having a tough time getting them to honor my most recent orders...
How much does this actual policy goals, and how much is red meat for one audience, and provocation and distraction for another? While there are surely ideologues moving into positions of real power and influence who stand passionately behind the abolition of our current citizenship regime, this whole executive order feels to me like it is primarily pitched as performance. If it actually happened, that would be gravy to some, but maybe not the key purpose in publishing this lazy, sloppy, and divisive ukase.
I think it's real, especially as part of the general project of seeing how far they can go in rewriting the law from the White House--testing how much Trump has succeeded in breaking the constitution, as with all of these patently illegal moves. I hope to write more about this aspect fairly soon.
It's also the case that changing this one has long been a favorite aim of anti-immigration rightwingers like Stephen Miller, in response to a real phenomenon (so-called "birth tourism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism); TBH rich Chinese and Russian moms coming to the US to have their babies so that they will have an advantage down the line in getting the kids into college in the US doesn't have a lot of strong supporters, and stopping it is one of their least unpopular goals, so winning it would show voters not everything they want is bad. As such, it's also a really important part of the general attack on the 14th Amendment, which they would like to kill altogether.
And it's really possible it could make it through the current Supreme Court, thanks to that "entire literature", stupid though it is. I can really imagine Alito writing the opinion. Miller doesn't realize how shoddy the quality is, he thinks he's a genius and everything he does is brilliant, and Trump thinks so too.
Agreed with most of what you say. Testing limits and pushing limits is a positive outcome for them, as is undermining the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment with its remarkably radical scope, along with providing red meat for the base. Another general goal is to discombobulate opposition, and the range of measures, whether pernicious or ridiculous, is part of that. The question I have is how to manage the various responses that will arise. The flood of BS larded with genuinely dangerous acts (in personnel, in policy, in agenda) makes it hard to stay focused. And the current administration has some genuine PR savvy. Among other things, the media are much more likely to amplify something like "Greenland!" than Inspectors General, much less Federal employee policy, yet the latter are closer to the heart of taking over the levers of power in a durable way.
Absolutely, good question. That covers a lot of what I'm mainly preoccupied with at the moment. (I did allow myself to get sucked into the Greenland question, but it was too much fun.)
I have a feeling the Court will wanna retain some slim shred of...well, not decency...maybe just power. I mean, what happens if the say to that nice Mr Hilter that "Huh, we hadn't considered that a president could just rescind the text of the constitution. Welp, carry on, carry on..."
I think what happens is they might actually consider that, but ultimately would say "If we go along with this then why are we here?"
As I understand it, the Court decided in Marbury v Madison that their job was to decide whether a given law is "Constitutional", and if not the law was null and void. That scam is the core of their job, and they won't give it up to Trump. They'll cover his ass, but they decide what is legal and what is note. If they give that up they have no reason to exist.
My working assumption is Trump is motivated by the things that matter to him: money, revenge, and the greater glory of Donald Trump. These align with the motivations of the people working through him. Miller has a passion for cleansing America of foreign filth (god knows where that comes from) and Trump has a passion for taking credit for delivering promises to his base. He knows how powerful the "mass deportation now" message is, and he wants credit for delivering it. Miller is smart enought to let him take it, but Miller is probably calling the shots on this. That's what staff is for, Trump would say.
The international dick waving is probably mostly his idea. Greenland, Panama, all the rest. The Art of the Deal as the Great Game. All the "pauses" are probably Heritage guys pursuing their passion of dismantling the regulatory state. Right now we're in throw it all against the wall mode. Ne t comes see what sticks, and the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari will take it from there.
As far as I am concerned, the social contact is null and void. I no longer feel any sense of moral duty to cooperate with the people who claim authority over me because they have done a shitty job. Therefore I will resist them.
The arguments against the long-established definition are the purest of white smoke rings eminating from the butts of reactionary fooles and soulless lawyers. But for the moment, that's irrelevant. We are beginning the inital wave of max conservative hubris, aka "who's gonna stop me". The system will route all this into the courts, while the administration continues to round up and expel or confine the intended targets, Latinos in the US. It will be instructive to see if any injunctions pausing this effort are issued, or obeyed. In the end, a year or 2 from now, will SCOTUS uphold the existing definition, or call this another "official act" beyond review? This is one of many places that decide how much friction there will be in our slide down from the shining city on a hill.
Hmmm. So you think that disobeying the constitution would be criminalized/then made moot because it's the prez what done it?
I think "disobeying the Constitution" is not a criminal court matter, but maybe an impeachable High Crime. Trump has no authority to sign the order and should not have signed it. But the main thing is the order itself is unconstitutional and hence invalid. Congress couldn't codify it into law, either, it would have to be passed as an Amendment.
Far as I know, that's the decision from Trump v. United States, aka the Nixon Rule. The decision simply says the President has absolute immunity for any "official act" he takes. What is an "official act" asks somebody in the back. That was deliberately left completely undefined, so it is whatever SCOTUS says when it comes before them. Note this does NOT apply to minions carrying out the order (so far) but that's what pardons are for.
If they're "not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" then we can't very well round them up and deport them, can we? [head->desk]
Yes, that was my immediate reaction when I first saw this asshole pseudo-argument several years ago: a thought experiment in which a bunch of "illegal" aliens set up an encampment on the outskirts of some city, and proceed to deal illegal drugs and stolen goods; and, golly gee, the poor pathetic American government, as well as the state and its local governments, is powerless to do anything about it, because this little colony is not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I am not a lawyer, and therefore have never heard such a totally stupid pseudo-argument advanced.
This might be one reason why the nazis want to offload the coming enforced unpleasantnesses onto the lower jurisdictions.
Also of note is that, in recent years, the USA (via the IRS) has made life difficult for a group of "accidental Americans" (as they have been referred to here in the Netherlands). These are those who were born in the USA of foreign parents, or born outside the USA of American parents, and thus by birthright US citizens.
These "accidental" citizens were then required to file appropriate tax paperwork or risk penalties (including the loss of their bank accounts - in the land where they live and are actually citizens) based on their discovered citizenship. Even if - as in some cases - they had *never* so much as set foot in the USA. For some people this turned into a nightmare scenario with multiple "catch-22" points.
Huh. Can you send us to sources that fill in the details?
Pretty much all of what I have read is in Dutch, but I will see if I can find something in English.
Actually, the Wikipedia entry looks not bad, and gives an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_American
Thanks for the thorough historical treatment.
There is also “an entire literature” supporting the sovereign citizen movement. And another “entire literature,” similarly efficacious, that says if I step into a wardrobe, I can become king of Narnia.
I have "an entire literature" of Montgomery Ward catalogs supporting my right to spend money on stuff, but I'm having a tough time getting them to honor my most recent orders...
Hey, have you tried it lately?
Speaking as one who has visited the actual original Tolkien wardrobe - the one at Wheaton College, not the other one, I forget where.
How much does this actual policy goals, and how much is red meat for one audience, and provocation and distraction for another? While there are surely ideologues moving into positions of real power and influence who stand passionately behind the abolition of our current citizenship regime, this whole executive order feels to me like it is primarily pitched as performance. If it actually happened, that would be gravy to some, but maybe not the key purpose in publishing this lazy, sloppy, and divisive ukase.
I think it's real, especially as part of the general project of seeing how far they can go in rewriting the law from the White House--testing how much Trump has succeeded in breaking the constitution, as with all of these patently illegal moves. I hope to write more about this aspect fairly soon.
It's also the case that changing this one has long been a favorite aim of anti-immigration rightwingers like Stephen Miller, in response to a real phenomenon (so-called "birth tourism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism); TBH rich Chinese and Russian moms coming to the US to have their babies so that they will have an advantage down the line in getting the kids into college in the US doesn't have a lot of strong supporters, and stopping it is one of their least unpopular goals, so winning it would show voters not everything they want is bad. As such, it's also a really important part of the general attack on the 14th Amendment, which they would like to kill altogether.
And it's really possible it could make it through the current Supreme Court, thanks to that "entire literature", stupid though it is. I can really imagine Alito writing the opinion. Miller doesn't realize how shoddy the quality is, he thinks he's a genius and everything he does is brilliant, and Trump thinks so too.
Agreed with most of what you say. Testing limits and pushing limits is a positive outcome for them, as is undermining the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment with its remarkably radical scope, along with providing red meat for the base. Another general goal is to discombobulate opposition, and the range of measures, whether pernicious or ridiculous, is part of that. The question I have is how to manage the various responses that will arise. The flood of BS larded with genuinely dangerous acts (in personnel, in policy, in agenda) makes it hard to stay focused. And the current administration has some genuine PR savvy. Among other things, the media are much more likely to amplify something like "Greenland!" than Inspectors General, much less Federal employee policy, yet the latter are closer to the heart of taking over the levers of power in a durable way.
Absolutely, good question. That covers a lot of what I'm mainly preoccupied with at the moment. (I did allow myself to get sucked into the Greenland question, but it was too much fun.)
I have a feeling the Court will wanna retain some slim shred of...well, not decency...maybe just power. I mean, what happens if the say to that nice Mr Hilter that "Huh, we hadn't considered that a president could just rescind the text of the constitution. Welp, carry on, carry on..."
I think what happens is they might actually consider that, but ultimately would say "If we go along with this then why are we here?"
As I understand it, the Court decided in Marbury v Madison that their job was to decide whether a given law is "Constitutional", and if not the law was null and void. That scam is the core of their job, and they won't give it up to Trump. They'll cover his ass, but they decide what is legal and what is note. If they give that up they have no reason to exist.
Thanks.
There's a couple of dynamics going on.
My working assumption is Trump is motivated by the things that matter to him: money, revenge, and the greater glory of Donald Trump. These align with the motivations of the people working through him. Miller has a passion for cleansing America of foreign filth (god knows where that comes from) and Trump has a passion for taking credit for delivering promises to his base. He knows how powerful the "mass deportation now" message is, and he wants credit for delivering it. Miller is smart enought to let him take it, but Miller is probably calling the shots on this. That's what staff is for, Trump would say.
The international dick waving is probably mostly his idea. Greenland, Panama, all the rest. The Art of the Deal as the Great Game. All the "pauses" are probably Heritage guys pursuing their passion of dismantling the regulatory state. Right now we're in throw it all against the wall mode. Ne t comes see what sticks, and the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari will take it from there.
As far as I am concerned, the social contact is null and void. I no longer feel any sense of moral duty to cooperate with the people who claim authority over me because they have done a shitty job. Therefore I will resist them.
[47th Reich minions furiously parsing the contract's fine print]
"Dammit!"