Yeah these are the sorts of things the supreme Court has never specificly ruled on because they were so clear there’s never been a need. The purpose of judicial review is not to thumbs up or thumbs down every clause and concept in our legal frame work. The supreme Court has also never weighed in on whether we have a president. Or other the right to free speech exists. Jurisprudence on things like that are about the extent, and execution of things that are acknowledged to exist. Not whether they exist in the first place.
It’s pretty clear he only barely understands the role of the president and the limits of his power. Not only domestically, but the fact that he can’t dictate a policy by fiat to other soveriegn nations.
Probably knows just how dodgey and impossible this is. And is likely very excited by the possibility of collapsing our system by pressing the issue. If they move forward on this it’s definitely another playing chicken with democracy moment.
First, Kavanaugh has already said that the President can ignore any law until the SCROTUS’s final ruling. Second, the Roberts Court will almost certainly go along with this 5-4
It applies to people LIVING in the US, regardless of citizenship status… it should also apply to people LIVING overseas, in that we do not have the right to, say, kill them via drone. Other than that, there are several UN documents that explicitly spell out basic human rights that NO ONE should be deprived of.
Have you heard about the installation Laurie Anderson did a few years ago? She collaborated with Mohammad el Gharani, one of youngest people to be kidnapped by the US government who is now living in West Africa:
No, because then the entire POINT of the constitution becomes moot - a set of laws that spell our specific rights for citizens and rules governing the conduct of the American government that the government can not abridge. It’s the supreme law of the land, and congress, the states, and local communities are not allowed to abridge those rights. I seriously doubt an executive order will stand up to any constitutional challenge.
A person can dream. The Bill of Rights told them what sorts of laws they weren’t allowed to pass, and it hardly took 150 years for a few exceptions to start swallowing all the rules.
No, it covers those whom the President determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks or harbored them.
(ETA: Sorry about the double post. Proxy server crashed.)
Since this President’s determinations do not appear to be bound by logic, I could easily see him determining that a Honduran refugee has harbored someone who aided in the attacks. (And the law appears to give him the sole authority to make that determination.)
I am amused by the fact that people are not paying more attention to the timing of the stunt, how desperate he is to drive Pittsburgh and the MAGAbomber off the news cycle that he had to go for the most ridiculous thing he could pull out of the cobwebs of his head.
It is a distraction, and we are falling for it.
Really, go and vote. Let the Arschgesicht prattle and kick out his bootlickers from Congress. And after the election, then we can ridicule him and his stupid, stupid ideas even louder.
I guess I’m bemused because it’s not really the first time he has said it, and it is such a naked ploy. An attempt to make the news all about him him him.
it’s way too late for that. already this morning i’ve seen memes on facebook saying that sending troops to the border is justified because the government is supposed to defend against invading armies. i saw a “man in the street” from dallas on the local dallas news saying that he’s “heard that half or more of the caravan are pregnant women waiting to drop their brats when they get into this country but thank god the president is outmaneuvering them.”
unfortunately he knows how the media and his base work,
except for the current composition of the court. with gorsuch and kavanaugh instead of garland and kennedy this isn’t nearly as much of a sure thing as you make it sound.
that’s not necessarily true. while they might not be subject to the jurisdiction of the state they are in they could still be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government who could immediately begin regarding them as undesirable aliens.
roberts may well have been guiding towards that result but now that there is a full complement of judges to the right of him, roberts might not be able to stop it from happening. remember, it takes 4 justices to grant certiorari. there are now 4 far right loons on the court.
Who have rights. Including birthright citizenship for children born on US soil. Either they’re subject to US jurisdiction or they’re not. There is no difference between “jurisdiction” for birthright citizenship purposes and “jurisdiction” for other purposes. If they are not subject to US federal jurisdiction, and thus not eligible for birthright citizenship. Then the federal government also lacks jurisdiction to prosecute them and so forth.
If there is a fed state divide here it would be that individual states are able to make the jurisdiction decision on their own or subject to state Constitutions. Which creates irreconcilable problems. As people would end up citizens of states without being federal citizens. Some states would claim jurisdiction while other didn’t.
I already covered the current make up of the Court. There is one Justice who is clearly antagonistic to the legitimacy of the court. And who wholely endorses unlimited executive power. One. Another who might. The rest, whatever their political leanings. Have been actively avoiding undermining themselves for a while now.
And at least two of those far right loons aren’t particularly interested in creating a Constitutional crisis all on their own. There is a difference between right wing politics and antagonism to the rule of law. And there are plenty of right wing reasons to push back on this idea. Including the jurisdiction problem I outlined above.
Of course there’s symbiosis between the two types of think tanks, but in this context the money goes first to where it does the plutocrats the most good: efforts to lower labour costs across the board. The ones focused on promoting institutionalised bigotry and xenophobia in that context serve as a counter-balance to keep white workers distracted in line with LBJ’s observation that:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
