Church news reiterates immigration stance

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You want the government to interrupt sacrament meeting or a Temple endowment session to remove people whom you say "have no right to be here"?

"Here", meaning sacrament meeting or a Temple session?

I doubt very much that such action would be taken. If they are here (in the US) illegally then they have no right to be in the country, no less in the temple or a sacrament meeting. In any case, that person needs to be removed from the US. If they are here illegally, they had to lie to be baptized or to obtain a temple recommend. 

If they have committed crimes or are suspected to have done so that require deportation and the police become aware of their location, it would be their prerogative to arrest them in a church following all legal procedures, but it might not be prudent if there were possible violent reactions.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

yet you brought it up.

Well, okay.  

Tennessee Attorney General Files Brief In Support Of Trump’s Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship

Quote

Tennessee Attorney General Johnathan Skrmetti filed a legal brief in support of President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

The executive order, which Trump signed on his first day in office, was swiftly challenged in the courts and has been blocked from going into effect by a second federal judge in response to a lawsuit from CASA and other left-wing organizations.

Skrmetti outlined his opinion in favor of the executive order’s legality in a “friend-of-the-court” brief filed earlier this week, asserting that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship for those whose parents are present in the United States illegally.

I have read this article and the linked-to Amicus brief.  I doubt you or @ttribe has read either.

Spoiling for a fight: Why challenging birthright citizenship is a win-win for Trump

Quote

This week, the Trump administration doubled down in its fight against birthright citizenship. The usual alliance of pundits, professors and press lined up to declare any challenge to birthright citizenship as absurd. Yet the administration seemed not only undeterred, but delighted.

There is a reason for that euphoria: They believe that they cannot lose this fight.

The legal case against birthright citizenship has always been tough to make, given the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in federal courts and agencies. Many in academia and the media have shown unusual outrage toward anyone questioning the basis for birthright citizenship as a legal or policy matter.

This is perhaps best evinced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe’s profane tirade the last time Trump raised this issue years ago: “This f—ing racist wants to reverse the outcome of the Civil War.”

Putting aside that the Civil War was fought over slavery, not immigration, many at the time would have disagreed that this was one of the outcomes of either the Civil War or the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment starts and ends as a model of clarity, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” However, sandwiched between those two phrases, Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed many since they were first drafted.

For some, the line must be read as a whole and guarantees that anyone born within the United States becomes an American citizen. For others, the six words cannot be read out of the amendment as superfluous. They argue that this indicates that the parents must be here in a legal status, either as citizens or legal residents.

This division was evident at the very birth of the amendment. Some of those debating the question clearly believed that the amendment did cover anyone born on our soil regardless of the status of the parents. During the debates, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Senator John Conness of California answered this in the affirmative.

Others indicated the opposite understanding. Senator Jacob Howard, coauthor of the Fourteenth Amendment, said it was “simply declaratory” of the Civil Rights Act to protect freed slaves.

Howard assured senators, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Likewise, Senator Lyman Trumbull, author of the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and a drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment, said that the six words included only those “not owing allegiance to anyone else.” 

This debate has raged for decades. While Democrats today portray anyone supporting the narrower interpretation as a racist or nutty, it was not long ago that many Democratic leaders opposed birthright citizenship, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). He later denounced his old position with the same passion.

Quoth one of the authors of the 14th Amendment: "'This {amendment} will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.'"

That kinda-sorta sounds like Sen. Howard did not have "birthright citizenship" in mind when authoring the 14th Amendment.  Thoughts?

The article continues:

Quote

The Supreme Court itself seemed conflicted in the relatively few cases that touched on this issue. In 1872, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the court interpreted the words “subject to its jurisdiction” as “intended to exclude from its operation” children of “citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” A few years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the court unanimously expressed “doubts” that citizenship would apply for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

Huh.  The doubts voiced in Minor seem relevant to birthright citizenship ("children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents").

Quote

Then, in 1884, the Supreme Court handed down Elk v. Wilkins and held that parents must not merely be “subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power”  To claim citizenship, they must owe the U.S. “direct and immediate allegiance.”

Thoughts?  Are illegal aliens completely "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States "and not subject to any foreign power"?  Isn't coming and going to/from Mexico indicative of people who feel "subject to" the sovereign nation to our immediate south?

A lot of rallies protesting immigration enforcement seem to involve the waiving of the flags of Mexico and other countries.  Is that indicative of people professing "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States?

Here's where, I think, the rubber really hits the road:

Quote

Supporters of birthright citizenship can cite countervailing authority to support their position. In 1898, the court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”

Anti-birthright advocates stress the court’s additional emphasis that the parents had to have “a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and [be] there carrying on business.” 

Yet in 1982, in Plyler v. Doe, the court voted 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment required Texas to provide public schooling to the children of illegal immigrants, noting that there is “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

There are strong arguments in favor of the broader interpretation to include birthright citizenship, and the case law favors the conventional interpretation. Indeed, it is not clear whether the Trump administration could secure a majority of the court to adopt the narrower interpretation, including potentially skeptical conservatives such as John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

I think this is both pragmatic and correct.  Nevertheless, I think there are good arguments against birthright citizenship. 

So what is Trump's calculus here?  I dunno.  The article speculates:

Quote

What is clear is that such an interpretation would likely need to be made by the Supreme Court (rather than lower courts) given the existing precedent in favor of birthright citizenship.

So what makes this a win-win proposition for the Trump administration? The politics are stronger than the precedent.

Even if the administration loses before the Supreme Court, it will force Democrats again to fight against a tougher stance on immigration issues. Democrats maintained that position in the last election despite polling showing that 83 percent of Americans support deportations of immigrants with violent criminal records and almost half support mass deportation of all undocumented persons.

I will, again, note that I am not in favor of "mass deportation of all undocumented persons."  Rather, I prefer the Church's proposed framework.

Quote

On birthright citizenship, roughly half of the country now opposes it, according to a recent Emerson poll. That is consistent with much of the world. The U.S. is actually in the minority on the issue.

And yet, if it's in the Constitution, and SCOTUS is the arbiter of that question, then Birthright Citizenship is the law of the land.  Either way, I respect the law of the land.

Quote

Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizens and follow the common practice of “jus sanguinis,” or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following “jus soli,” or right of soil.

That is why the Trump administration may win either way. It will either secure a new interpretation from the high court or it could spur a campaign for a constitutional amendment. All of this could unfold around the time of the midterm elections, when incumbents of the president’s party are generally disfavored. This is a wedge issue that many in the Republican Party might welcome.

Indeed, the most relevant quote from the Civil War period may be that of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in the final year of the war, when he declared “I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.” It was a war of attrition, and Grant liked the odds. Some conservatives seem to have the same view of the lay of the land in the fight over birthright citizenship.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

I would like to see a definitive decision from SCOTUS.  I'm fairly ambivalent about it.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

Quote

Trump’s executive order stands on a firmer footing than its vocal critics acknowledge.

This header got my attention.

Quote

One of Trump’s most daring executive orders now declares that citizenship rights should be denied to children whose mother under current law was “unlawfully present in the United States” or whose presence in the United States was “lawful but temporary,” but only if that person’s father “was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”  That general command was subject to two key qualifications.  The first is that it did not take effect until 30 days after the order, which grandfathered out of the E.O. all individuals who became birthright citizens as the children of both illegal aliens and sojourners into the U.S. The E.O. rightly did nothing to undo the current status whereby the children of lawful permanent residents were entitled to obtain the documents needed to certify their citizenship.

As a matter of first principle, it is hard to think of any good reason why legal and illegal conduct should be treated identically.  A person who kills without justification or excuse is a murderer, who is properly treated quite differently from someone who kills in self-defense. Indeed, the entire civil and criminal law is organized to suppress illegal conduct and to support legal conduct.

"{T}he entire civil and criminal law is organized to suppress illegal conduct and to support legal conduct."

I think that is correct.

I also think that jus soli tends to incentivize illegal conduct.  If so, that would not be what the Founding Fathers intended, or those who drafted the 14 Amendment.  The article continues:

Quote

But the opposite is true with birthright citizenship, which gives a strong spur for illegal conduct. Therefore, to the uninitiated, it should come as a surprise that the dominant view in the United States, ably expressed by James Ho, now a Fifth Circuit Court judge is that the history and text of the Fourteenth Amendment require the constitutional protection of birthright citizenship, by arguments from text and history, without asking about the undesirable incentive structures created by these rules. Indeed, that position is so engrained in American legal culture that federal court Judge and Reagan appointee John Coughenour, in a short opinion written in response to a complaint filed by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, held that there was a “strong likelihood” that the plaintiffs would win on the merits, citing, without analysis, as his key legal authority United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

It turns out that he should have looked closer because that decision at no point addressed, either explicitly—the word “illegal” is not used in the opinion—or implicitly, the legal status of the children born in the United States of illegal aliens. 

I think we are all looking more closely at jus soli.

Quote

Rather, that case dealt explicitly with the common situation where the plaintiff was the child of lawful permanent aliens in the United States who had long engaged in a lawful business and were denied the right to become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion statute.  The gist of Justice Horace Gray’s opinion was that their son could not be barred from a return to the United States because, as the child of lawful residents, he consistently held and asserted U.S. citizenship from birth, which was rightly awarded as an incentive for these individuals to strengthen their allegiance to this country.  There has been no serious discussion in the judicial and academic literature supporting citizenship for illegal aliens that addresses the obvious perverse incentives of encouraging illegal immigration by allowing the parents to have their new-born children profit from these parental wrongs.  The same argument applies to children whose mothers come late in pregnancy (often called, disparagingly, anchor babies, to the United States for the sole purpose of taking advantage of birthright citizens.

I bolded the last bit.  It merits attention.

Quote

On the historical front, there were no restrictions on immigration prior to the Civil War so there is no body of law that deals with it.  But the problem of the sojourner had to come up frequently, and there is no record of any parent claiming that their children born in the United States were citizens, so on one half the problem, the historical record is clearly against the claim.  And as illegality is, if anything, a more serious offense, it seems clear that if that problem had arisen, there is no reason to think that citizenship would have been granted.

Yet given the weak historical record, the overall understanding of Wong Kim Ark depends heavily on the key text of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That language comes hard on the heels of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which opens with this declaration:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery . . .

The 1866 Act thus includes foreigners on the list of persons, along with Indians not taxed.  Diplomats are on that list. The Fourteenth Amendment contains no enumeration of excluded parties but does contain the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that points to a set of unenumerated exclusions.  It is widely agreed that this phrase includes diplomats and their families who owe loyalty to their sovereign.  But if that were the only class of cases covered, the exception to citizenship language could have been explicit.  And it would be odd in the extreme if there were any reversal on foreigners, especially illegal aliens and sojourners, without some explicit notice of the point.  Yet the early case law speaks to these issues against the claim of birthright citizenship.  Thus, from the outset, it has never been disputed that members of the Indian tribes within the United States did not obtain citizenship of this clause.  Thus, Elk v. Wilkins (1884) held that the Indian plaintiff was not an American citizen because the Citizenship Clause required that he had to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Thereafter, it took The Citizens Act of 1924 to make by statute members of Indian tribes citizens of the United States.  Members of Indian tribes occupy a complex position under American law, which followed, according to Elk that “an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.” And the same position had also been taken in the well-known Slaughter-House Cases (1872). Speaking about the Citizenship Clause in the wake of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), they wrote: “That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction,’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”  Both cases were cited and distinguished in Wong Kim Ark, which is no surprise since the same Supreme Court Justice, Horace Gray, wrote both Elk and Wong Kim Ark.

At this point, one key analysis turns on the history surrounding using the term citizenship before adopting the Fourteenth Amendment. That term is used in the original Constitution without any explicit definition, so at this, it is widely agreed that the analysis turns on the standard use of that term in the United States and elsewhere, including the English common law.  That issue received extensive discussion in Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the legal question presented was whether women could be citizens of the United States, which held that “it did not need this amendment to give them that position.”  It then concluded on the specific question that citizenship was a matter for states to determine and that, historically, it was common for states to restrict voting rights to male citizenship, a point that was echoed in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which refers to “male inhabitants” in dealing with the new rules for the apportionment of representatives in the United States.

Minor also included an extensive general discussion of how any person, male or female, natural or naturalized, acquired the attributes of citizens from the time of the initial ratification in 1787 ratification. It then allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations.” Neither part of this equation applies to either illegal aliens or to sojourners, so it is no surprise that neither group forms any part of the discussion in Minor, which frames, as I have long argued, the meaning of the term “citizen” as it is used in the first two clauses of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that draws an explicit distinction between citizens and persons, noting that only citizens are entitled to the greater protection of privileges and immunities, which include the right to enter any occupation and to own property, in contrast to the basic rights afforded to all persons namely, to avoid arbitrary loss of life, liberty or property, or be subject to the unequal protection of the laws. The second set of constitutional protections must be given to illegal aliens and sojourners, while the privileges and immunities clause does not. Nor should any of this come as a surprise because the international backdrop to the Constitution, which was far more influential in the period just after the Civil War, contained many maxims of justice, including ex turpi causa non oritur actio, “out of dishonorable cause, no action arises”, covers the case where any person uses his or her illegal act to advance the position of his child. No one at the time or now has advanced a coherent explanation as to why birthright citizenship is desirable as a matter of principle. So why assume that it was adopted silently through the back door? Judge Coughenour and the many other judges and justices who will be asked to review this critical issue have their work cut out to confront the many textual and historical challenges to the birthright citizenship claim.

Richard A. Epstein is a senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute. He is also the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, where he serves as a Director of the Classical Liberal Institute, which he helped found in 2013.

Mr. Epstein raises some pretty interesting points, no?

The Constitution Does Not Grant Birthright Citizenship to the Children of Illegal Immigrants

Quote

Overview

Dozens of media outlets are reporting in unison that Donald Trump cannot stop the U.S. government from awarding birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. They claim this is the case because the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires it.

In reality, the legislative history of the 14th Amendment is clear that it only grants birthright citizenship to the children of people who are legally and permanently living in the United States. This does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants, temporary residents, visitors, or tourists.

I think the "clear" bit is perhaps overstated (if it were "clear," we would probably not be having this discussion).

Quote

The children of such foreigners are currently granted U.S. citizenship and its benefits under a misinterpretation of the Constitution. Although such citizenship could be conferred through legislation, no such law exists.

A Supreme Court ruling in 1898 presents mixed messages about this issue, but it is factually flawed on multiple levels and could justifiably be superseded by the current Supreme Court.

The Historical Background

In 1866, shortly after the Civil War ended and slavery was abolished, a bloc of Congressmen called the “Radical Republicans” passed a civil rights law to ensure that African Americans had the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens….” This law applied to former slaves but not to foreigners, and thus, it stated that:

all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States….

To guarantee that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was constitutional, the Radical Republicans fought for and secured passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. The amendment mimics the act and states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The sentence above is known as the “birthright citizenship” clause of the Constitution. Under the current prevailing interpretation of it, children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, temporary residents, visitors, and tourists automatically become U.S. citizens and:

• are eligible for all state and federal welfare benefits, such as food stamps, housing, home energy, childcare, and health insurance.
• can vote in U.S. elections.
• sometimes serve as shields to prevent their parents from being deported.
• can sponsor their relatives to become legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.

In 2009, Pew Research estimated that 73% of the children of unauthorized immigrants were U.S. citizens.

The Current Debate

During a recent episode of NBC’s Meet the Press, moderator Kristen Welker asked President-elect Donald Trump if he planned to keep his promise to end birthright citizenship on his first day in office, and Trump replied, “Yeah. Absolutely.”

Welker then challenged Trump by stating, “The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, ‘All persons born in the United States are citizens.’ Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?”

Welker’s assertion is materially false because it omits the operative words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from the 14th Amendment:

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

I think Welker's omission is significant, and the calling out of that omission, are significant.

Quote

The debate about birthright citizenship hinges upon the words that Welker excluded, but instead of correcting her, several media outlets parroted her falsehood, like the BBC, CNN, and NBC News.

While posting a screenshot of the misleading NBC article, Hillary Clinton wrote on X, “Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution. Trump may want to read it.” Yet, neither she nor NBC quoted the Constitution.

Birthright Citizenship has been read into the Constitution.  

Quote

Dozens of other media outlets reported on the exchange between Trump and Welker while mentioning the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” but claiming that it includes illegal immigrants. This includes, for example, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, PolitiFact, and CBS News. The common thread among all of them is that they ignore the pivotal facts of the issue.

The Determinative Facts

On May 30, 1866, Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Senate and defined the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” by stating:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Some scholars, like Tufts University professor Daniel W. Drezner, argue that the words “foreigners,” “aliens,” “ambassadors” and “foreign ministers” are merely “synonyms to describe the same category of individuals, namely the children of foreign officials.”

Drezner’s claim is transparently false because the meanings of the words “foreigner” and “alien” include illegal immigrants, while “ambassador” and “foreign minister” do not. Moreover, the differences between the first two words and the last two are so great that a total of 198 synonyms provided by Power Thesaurus for “foreigner” and “alien” don’t include “ambassador” or “foreign minister.” The converse is also true.

This is a close reading of Sen. Howard's comments. 

Quote

Furthermore, the senators debated the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” after Howard introduced the amendment, and Howard further explained that:

the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.

As ratified, the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment contains the exact words proposed by Howard. Hence, there can be little doubt that it means exactly what he said it means.

What are your thoughts about the above quote?

Quote

Drezner quotes other snippets from the U.S. Senate debate as if they determine the meaning of the birthright citizenship clause, but the full record of the discussion reveals that they were just a part of the typical back-and-forth that occurs in such debates. By cherry-picking quotes from this dialogue, one can make any variety of claims about what it means. In the end, the definitive authority on this issue is Jacob Howard, who proposed and clarified the words that became a part of the U.S. Constitution.

Notably, the 14th Amendment doesn’t prohibit federal legislators from granting citizenship to people not included in its birthright citizenship clause. This occurred in 1924 when Congress passed and President Calvin Coolidge signed a law that awarded U.S. citizenship to all “non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States.” Conversely, no such legislation has been passed for the children of illegal immigrants or tourists.

"{N}o such legislation has been passed for the children of illegal immigrants or tourists."

That seems to be correct.  Do you dispute it?

Quote

Supreme Court Precedent

In 1873, a baby named Wong Kim Ark was born in the city of San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who were legally living in the U.S. and had “established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein” but were not U.S. citizens.

When Ark was about 21 years old, he took a trip to China but was denied reentry to the U.S. because laws enacted in 1882 and 1888 prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., and customs officials decided that Ark wasn’t a U.S. citizen because his parents were not.

Ark sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court, where Ark won. In a 6–2 decision issued in 1898, the majority declared that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all children here born of resident aliens” with limited exceptions like diplomats, occupying enemy forces, and members of Indian tribes.

Conflictingly, however, the majority also wrote that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only applies to people who “are permitted by the United States to reside here.” This plainly excludes unauthorized immigrants and tourists who don’t live in the U.S.

I bolded the last bit.  Thoughts?

Quote

Another flaw in the ruling is that the majority assumes the 14th Amendment “must be interpreted in the light” of “English common law” that preceded the birth of the United States. Since “English common law” linked “English nationality” to “birth within the allegiance” of “the king,” the majority claimed that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country….”

Beyond the fact that the 14th Amendment was enacted 92 years after the birth of the United States, the dissenting justices criticized the majority for imposing on the U.S. Constitution “feudal” and “regal” doctrines that the founders of the U.S. had overthrown. The notion that people are the “subjects” of a monarch, wrote the minority, “never had any basis in the United States.”

Another weakness in the majority’s ruling is their claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” means the same as “within the jurisdiction.” This is called into question by the first paragraph of the 14th Amendment, which uses those phrases for different purposes (italics added):

• “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”
• “nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It’s a stretch to assume that the authors of 14th Amendment used those distinctive terms to mean the same thing, especially since one of the authors explicitly stated that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”:

• “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers….”
• doesn’t include “an Indian belonging to a tribe.”
• “ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

Given the forgoing facts, the current Supreme Court may set aside the conflicting dicta of the Court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, who was the child of legal immigrants—not illegal immigrants or tourists.

"{T}he current Supreme Court may set aside the conflicting dicta of the Court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, who was the child of legal immigrants—not illegal immigrants or tourists."

Thoughts?

Quote

Summary

Based on a faulty interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the federal government is awarding citizenship to the children of nearly everyone who gives birth in the United States. As a result, the children are entitled to receive welfare, vote when they become older, and obtain other benefits of U.S. citizenship. This includes the children of illegal immigrants, temporary residents, and even foreigners who vacation in the U.S.

The legislative history of the 14th Amendment reveals that the birthright citizenship clause was enacted primarily to protect the civil rights of African Americans. Contrary to shallow claims from the media and certain scholars, it doesn’t grant citizenship to the children of anyone who is not legally and permanently living in the United States.

I think the more circumspect article above (the first one) may be more pragmatically correct, but this article makes some very good arguments.

DeSantis and Trump Both Vow to End Birthright Citizenship. Can They Do That?

Birthright Citizenship for $500: What Is, America in Jeopardy!

These aren't quite as substantive in terms of legal analysis, but I thought I'd throw them in.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

There are consequences for allowing illegal behavior to go unaddressed, especially in vast numbers and over long periods of time. Our leaders have created a huge mess and now we have to deal with it. It’s not going to be easy.

[Duncan]

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

US. If they are here illegally, they had to lie to be baptized or to obtain a temple recommend. 

lol. You are delusional. I served a mission with an undocumented immigrant. His father was Bishop. The church was very aware of their status. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Of course you know this, but what you say here made me want to say it. The US invaded Mexico, we took their land.

And where did Mexico get "their land"?  Through war and conquest, correct?

And where did the Spanish Empire get "their land"?

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Most people don't understand cause and effect very well, or at the very least they don't see things well that are beyond their immediate perspective.  It's like that time all those people in kayaks and north face gear holding iphones were photographed protesting oil.

I think it would help a lot if required college classes included teaching people how to see the bigger picture, no matter what their ideals are.  If something is the right choice, then it's the right choice even if it negatively impacts you; it's not just right if it only negatively impacts other people.

That's too bad that your friend is suffering so much, even when the tariffs never went into effect.  Hopefully it won't last long and the contracts will be back.

My friend’s company is scrambling to retain business that is walking away, and there’s a chance they’ll succeed. Even though the tariffs haven’t gone into effect yet (and maybe never will), Midwest American food companies are already hesitant to commit to Canadian imports due to the uncertainty of Trump’s policies. The risk alone is enough to disrupt business. 

As for my friend personally, he’s not the best example of an American getting crushed by Trump’s policies—not because he isn’t affected, but because he’s financially secure enough to weather the storm. That said, he is likely losing significant renewal commissions—real money he earned—not out of some self-flagellation, as @smac97 suggests, but due to the direct consequences of policies he once supported.

More importantly, he believes in his work. His business helps American farmers and ranchers get American food to American families efficiently, reducing spoilage and keeping costs down. Yet, thanks to Trump’s so-called “America First” policies, those very farmers, ranchers, and consumers will suffer: farm profits will shrink, and food prices will rise. My friend understands this reality. And despite what @smac97 thinks, raising food prices doesn’t put America first—it puts Trump’s ego first.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 If they are here illegally, they had to lie to be baptized or to obtain a temple recommend. 

No they didn't. 

It is not on any baptismal interview question.

It is not one of the temple recommend questions.

The church baptizes people who are here illegally.

They ordain them to offices in the priesthood

They call them as priesthood leaders (bishops, branch presidents, etc.)

They call them on missions

They let them perform temple ordinances

They participate in sacrament meetings

In each case, the church knows they are here illegally and does not care.    At all.

[smac97]

On 2/10/2025 at 5:19 PM, Bernard Gui said:

There are consequences for allowing illegal behavior to go unaddressed, especially in vast numbers and over long periods of time. Our leaders have created a huge mess and now we have to deal with it. It’s not going to be easy.

Yes.  The status quo has yielded some pretty terrible consequences.  Fixing the mess we've been in for a long time will also create some sad circumstances.  Yes, a lot of people have broken the law, but we more or less invited them to by looking the other way for years and years.  We need to end this by securing our border, kicking out the violent criminal types, and then figuring out a humane and reasonable solution for people who have been here a long time and been meaningful and contributing members of society.

"The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."  (Source.)

Contrary, to @Danzo repeated insinuations, I have no racist motivations or sentiments here.  My paternal grandparents were both born and raised in Colonia Juarez.  My father served his mission in Argentina, and later served as a Branch President in a Spanish-speaking branch in Utah County, and also later served a mission with my mother in Fabens, Texas (close to El Paso).  I served my mission in Taiwan, and my siblings and siblings-in-law served missions in Brasil, the Philippines, the Navajo Nation, and many other countries and areas.  I have a Hawaiian sister and a Tahitian brother.  My brother has fostered two young men from DRC, and two others from Afghanistan.  I know and love people of many different racial/cultural backgrounds.  I sustain and affirm the teachings of the Brethren we have received in the last many years which condemn racism of any sort.

Danzo has repeatedly imputed racist motives onto me.  I deny the charge.  Again, the Church's statement:

Quote

We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

I think this applies to all nations, not just the U.S. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2025 by smac97

[Danzo]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  

Tennessee Attorney General Files Brief In Support Of Trump’s Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship

I have read this article and the linked-to Amicus brief.  I doubt you or @ttribe has read either.

Spoiling for a fight: Why challenging birthright citizenship is a win-win for Trump

Quoth one of the authors of the 14th Amendment: "'This {amendment} will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.'"

That kinda-sorta sounds like Sen. Howard did not have "birthright citizenship" in mind when authoring the 14th Amendment.  Thoughts?

The article continues:

Huh.  The doubts voiced in Minor seem relevant to birthright citizenship ("children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents").

Thoughts?  Are illegal aliens completely "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States "and not subject to any foreign power"?  Isn't coming and going to/from Mexico indicative of people who feel "subject to" the sovereign nation to our immediate south?

A lot of rallies protesting immigration enforcement seem to involve the waiving of the flags of Mexico and other countries.  Is that indicative of people professing "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States?

Here's where, I think, the rubber really hits the road:

I think this is both pragmatic and correct.  Nevertheless, I think there are good arguments against birthright citizenship. 

So what is Trump's calculus here?  I dunno.  The article speculates:

I will, again, note that I am not in favor of "mass deportation of all undocumented persons."  Rather, I prefer the Church's proposed framework.

And yet, if it's in the Constitution, and SCOTUS is the arbiter of that question, then Birthright Citizenship is the law of the land.  Either way, I respect the law of the land.

I would like to see a definitive decision from SCOTUS.  I'm fairly ambivalent about it.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

This header got my attention.

"{T}he entire civil and criminal law is organized to suppress illegal conduct and to support legal conduct."

I think that is correct.

I also think that jus soli tends to incentivize illegal conduct.  If so, that would not be what the Founding Fathers intended, or those who drafted the 14 Amendment.  The article continues:

I think we are all looking more closely at jus soli.

I bolded the last bit.  It merits attention.

Mr. Epstein raises some pretty interesting points, no?

The Constitution Does Not Grant Birthright Citizenship to the Children of Illegal Immigrants

I think the "clear" bit is perhaps overstated (if it were "clear," we would probably not be having this discussion).

I think Welker's omission is significant, and the calling out of that omission, are significant.

Birthright Citizenship has been read into the Constitution.  

This is a close reading of Sen. Howard's comments. 

What are your thoughts about the above quote?

"{N}o such legislation has been passed for the children of illegal immigrants or tourists."

That seems to be correct.  Do you dispute it?

I bolded the last bit.  Thoughts?

"{T}he current Supreme Court may set aside the conflicting dicta of the Court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, who was the child of legal immigrants—not illegal immigrants or tourists."

Thoughts?

I think the more circumspect article above (the first one) may be more pragmatically correct, but this article makes some very good arguments.

DeSantis and Trump Both Vow to End Birthright Citizenship. Can They Do That?

Birthright Citizenship for $500: What Is, America in Jeopardy!

These aren't quite as substantive in terms of legal analysis, but I thought I'd throw them in.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are against that particular federal law.

Some laws you like, some you don't

Can't please everyone. 

Edited February 11, 2025 by Danzo

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

So you are against that particular federal law.

What "federal law" are you referencing here?

As far as the notion of a constitutional right to Birthright Citizenship, again: "I'm fairly ambivalent about it."

Just now, Danzo said:

So laws you like, some you don't

Can't please everyone. 

Yes, I like some laws and dislike others.  That is a separate question from whether we should do our best to observe the 12th Article of Faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As far as the notion of a constitutional right to Birthright Citizenship, again: "I'm fairly ambivalent about it."

yet you can't stop posting arguments against that right.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And where did Mexico get "their land"?  Through war and conquest, correct?

And where did the Spanish Empire get "their land"?

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you favor a statute of limitations when it comes to stealing land, but not for immigrants? Do I have that right?

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you favor a statute of limitations when it comes to stealing land, but not for immigrants? Do I have that right?

Don't you know immigrants will take advantage of a statute of limitations.  (no one else will, but immigrants can't be trusted with that kind of thing).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You ripped me a new one for observing that "Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada."  How is that any different from you making an observation about "the dependency of Canada on the US"?

That you don’t get the difference is at the root of the problem.

You are really over sensitive if you think warning you “Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada” is something that will likely anger a Canadian if you say it to them is ‘ripping you a new one’, lol.

Did your mom telling you it’s not polite to call someone fat reduced you to tears?

Edited February 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

 

If only they could transport their Canadian cool (meant in at least two ways  ) down here if we became the 11th? Province (probably at least the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th provinces) or 4th territory.

We put Canadian flags on our backpacks when in Russia even though the US was paying for us to be there.  I didn’t appreciate being refused service like happened the first time I went or my kids being spat at like happened when some friends visited (they were from Canada but mistaken for Americans).

Edited February 11, 2025 by Calm

[Analytics]

On 2/4/2025 at 4:57 PM, smac97 said:

My assessment of legal principles, and preferred legal/political policies, is not based on political parties, platforms or individuals.  I have never read a political party's platform, nor have I sought to align myself with one.  Rather, my assessment is based on my own training and experience as an attorney, my own research and analysis, my own sense of ethics and morality, and guidance from the leaders of the Church.  My political preferences and decisions are downstream from this.

A friend of mine who is an attorney brought this to my attention. She noted that the American Bar Association—an organization that generally avoids partisan endorsements—took the rare step today (February 10) of issuing a public statement insisting that "the government" follow the law. While I recognize that you don’t support all of Trump’s actions, you do seem to support many that the ABA considers so legally problematic that it felt compelled to speak out. Given that this statement is prominently featured on the ABA’s homepage, do you agree with them in insisting that Trump follow the law? If you think he already is, why do you think their legal analysis is incorrect?

To me, the real issue isn’t the trade deficit, illegal immigration, the participation of a handful of transgender athletes in NAIC sports, or even the degree of corruption (or lack thereof) at USAID. The core question is: Are we willing to accept a president who so flagrantly disregards the Constitution?

The ABA Supports the Rule of Law

It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.  

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law. 

The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.

Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.

In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day. 

These actions have forced affected parties to seek relief in the courts, which stand as a bulwark against these violations. We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.   

These actions do not make America stronger. They make us weaker. Many Americans are rightly concerned about how leaders who are elected, confirmed or appointed are proceeding to make changes. The goals of eliminating departments and entire functions do not justify the means when the means are not in accordance with the law. Americans expect better. Even among those who want change, no one wants their neighbor or their family to be treated this way. Yet that is exactly what is happening.   

These actions have real-world consequences. Recently hired employees fear they will lose their jobs because of some matter they were assigned to in the Justice Department or some training they attended in their agency. USAID employees assigned to build programs that benefit foreign countries are being doxed, harassed with name-calling and receiving conflicting information about their employment status. These stories should concern all Americans because they are our family members, neighbors and friends. No American can be proud of a government that carries out change in this way. Neither can these actions be rationalized by discussion of past grievances or appeals to efficiency. Everything can be more efficient, but adherence to the rule of law is paramount. We must be cognizant of the harm being done by these methods. 

Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.

There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.  

We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.

We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.

– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association

 

 

Edited February 11, 2025 by Analytics

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But not nearly as much as the coyotes smuggling them into the US, I imagine. Talk about disgusting.

yeah and Donald and his disciples thinks they scored a victory

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

May I ask, as an outsider, it seems to me from what I have heard that many of the un documented people that are now under threat of expulsion, that these people do a very large part of the work, for very little pay, that Americans do not want to do. Apparently farm workers and menial jobs in hospitality have been mentioned. So if they are expelled, will American be willing to fill the gap that they leave, and for the same level of pay? Will they be willing to be exploited in the same way ? Has the new administration thought of the consequences ? 

 

I've been grappling with this among other gaping blindspots I see as someone who's generally not aligned with the current admin. I try to understand and hear out perspectives not my own. I can usually understand and even see where they're coming from to an extent. But this has rarely translated into thinking that what's being sold is remotely a good idea. 

From what I've seen, just about everyone thinks. But how they think will be deeply informed by their context. Some people deep dive into topics. They value information. Which is not bad... But quite often the information people prioritize is the sort that reinforces their current views. Sometimes subtly in the sense that they'll inspect more the views that differ from their own and tote more the stuff that supports it. (I can fall into this category...most do). Sometimes more overtly. As in, they deeply question and suspect sources that don't support their views as some version of corrupt while defending and negating concerns from sources they like.

People often think under a backdrop of emotion. With or without them realizing it fully. There are a plethora of sources that feed off of that emotion, particularly online. Particularly in the US media atmosphere. This colors information being presented. It's kinda like seeing how a source that is anti-religion v pro-religion would interprate the same data point...but for social/political issues. 

I also find myself curious about the relationship to distrust and cynicism we currently hold on our society. I think both masquerade as thinking, when they're far more emotive and reacting. 

Lastly, I think there's intellectual shortcuts people take. No one can really be an expert in all things society. Which means we at some point have to rely on what sounds good or seems right. I think our brains prefer believing in simple solutions. We prefer social proverbs than exploring and addressing social nuance. If you're fat all you need is a good diet and exercise. If you're poor, all you need to do is to work hard. We just need more love and tolerance in the world. *Fill in the blank for this or that social slogan*. These seem right or good or correct. They often hold truths in them. But they also are overgeneralized and problematic when applied on large populations. 

When I see dialogue around immigration I see aspects of all of this in it. We have an immigration problem so all you need is "abc." (Which ignores the rest of the alphabet of concerns). Their is cynicism and distrust of immigrants, often highlighting the problems and issues from it than the way that immigration has supported a robust economy and valued social networks. We have a political system that sucks at seeing compromise and incrementalism as wins. Which fuels binary solution and binary language around discord on it. There's blindspots in acknowledging the issues in one's own "side." Often to the point of asserting solutions while ignoring that their side isn't actually pushing for them.

 

In my less charitable days I look at this and go "Lord, that's stupid." On my more charitable days I recognize this as a human condition that I'm not immune to. It doesn't excuse it, but it makes me more cautious about my own beams when seeing motes in others. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

Edited February 11, 2025 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

A friend of mine who is an attorney brought this to my attention. She noted that the American Bar Association—an organization that generally avoids partisan endorsements—

Hah.  

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

took the rare step today (February 10) of issuing a public statement insisting that "the government" follow the law.

Riiight.  "Rare."

"The ABA is apolitical!  Now watch it publicly accuse the Bad Orange Man of not following the law!"

My recollection is that the ABA opposed Dobbs, supported Roe and Casey, supported Obergefell, opposed Heller, opposed Masterpiece Cakeshop, and on and on and on.

And boy howdy, did the ABA ever step forward to make similarly public denunciations of politicians during the last administration.  Yes sir, those were some good memories.

Quote

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship,

Unless, of course, birthright citizenship is not constitutionally protected, in which case challenging the status quo is entirely legitimate.

The ABA likes "attacks" on the constitutional status quo when the attacks come from leftist/liberal positions, and oppose attacks from right/conservative positions.

Quote

the dismantling of USAID

With nary a mention of why, of the corruption, waste, insubordination, incompetence, graft, etc.

Quote

and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

Bad Orange Man can "criminalize" stuff with EOs, huh?

Quote

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. 

Unless, of course, "the required congressional approval" is itself an unconstitutional usurpation of executive authority.  Can Congress fund an executive agency, and then immunize that agency from the decisions of the chief executive?  That's a question that deserves some real discussion.

I want Mr. Trump to follow the law.  I also wanted Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama to follow the law.

Quote

There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law. 

Well, we'll see.

Quote

The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. 

The ABA also supports challenges to the constitutional status quo, which seems to be what the Bad Orange Man is doing.

Meanwhile, the ABA apparently has nothing to say when a federal judge does this:

Quote

Yesterday, federal judge Paul Engelmayer, a Democrat, issued a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from getting access to its own Treasury Department’s documents. The injunction applies to all political appointees, which includes the Secretary of the Treasury. It was issued ex parte, which means the government was not even heard in opposition.

An ex parte order from a Democrat judge prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury from accessing . . . the Treasury's records.

Wow.

Quote

Judge-shopping is pretty much universal in politically-charged cases. We can expect much more of this: Democrats will bring lawsuits in front of friendly judges, seeking to enjoin various actions by the nascent Trump administration. In most cases, those orders (like the one just issued by Engelmayer) will be reversed on appeal, but that is acceptable to the Democrats. What they are really trying to do is perpetuate a narrative that, in pretty much everything it does, the Trump administration is acting “illegally.” What law is being violated, is rarely specified.

More here:

Quote

A federal judge's order barring DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data is vague enough that some legal experts believe it even blocks the agency's secretary from reviewing records and systems, prompting Republicans to blast what they consider judicial overreach.

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Paul Engelmayer, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order Saturday that sided with 19 Democratic state attorneys general who claimed that giving DOGE "full access" to the Treasury’s payment systems violates the law. The lawsuit was spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a longtime Trump foe who said her office is "prepared to fight back" after President Donald Trump's November election win.

"The judge’s order is rightly being attacked as, at worse, barring the secretary of the Treasury from accessing the Treasury Department’s databases and at best, at being hopelessly ambiguous and confusing," the Federalist's senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland told Fox News Digital on Sunday of the order.

The judge's sweeping order, issued Saturday, bars DOGE from accessing the Treasury system until at least Feb. 14, when Engelmayer scheduled a hearing to revisit the matter.

The language of the order specifically bars "political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department access to Treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information." Trump, Secretary Scott Bessent and the U.S. Treasury are named as defendants in the case.

Boy, no "separation of powers" concern with this.  

Mike Lee:

Quote

This has the feel of a coup—not a military coup, but a judicial one.

Yes, I'm getting that vibe.

Another observation:

Quote

Is the federal judge taking the position that in the name of enforcing the Take Care Clause, it is the role of the judiciary to oversee whatever the President does with the executive power that the Constitution vests in him?

 

Is there some extra-legal notion that the federal judge should seize the power to put on the brakes when a President with questionable judgment is moving too fast? (I'm hearing some lawprofs singing that tune.)

 

ADDED: Here is the request for a temporary restraining order, and here is the judge's order.

Another:

Quote

It’s a previously unknown clause in Article II: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States, unless he threatens the establishment’s feedlot.

And from the ABA . . . crickets.

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

While I recognize that you don’t support all of Trump’s actions,

Thank you for the acknowledgment.  It is appreciated.  Truly.

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

you do seem to support many that the ABA considers so legally problematic that it felt compelled to speak out.

I'm ambivalent about some things, support of others, and oppose still others, and split the difference as to others.

But you'll get nothing but a hearty chortle out of me if you think the ABA's assessment on any political/policy issue has any appreciative probative weight with me.  It doesn't.  I repose no trust in the ABA as to such matters.

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

Given that this statement is prominently featured on the ABA’s homepage, do you agree with them in insisting that Trump follow the law?

Yes.

I also agree with those who insist that you stop torturing puppies for fun and profit.  

Loaded questions are fun.

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

If you think he already is, why do you think their legal analysis is incorrect?

There is no analysis.  Just broad, conclusory - and partisan - deprecations and vague pronouncements.  I don't recall seeing anything like this during the tenure of Bad Orange Man's predecessor.  Funny, that.

On 2/10/2025 at 6:56 PM, Analytics said:

To me, the real issue isn’t the trade deficit, illegal immigration, the participation of a handful of transgender athletes in NAIC sports, or even the degree of corruption (or lack thereof) at USAID. The core question is: Are we willing to accept a president who so flagrantly disregards the Constitution?

Heading back to the "loaded question" trough, eh?

And did you ask this "core question" at any time from 2021-2024?  AFAF.

I think the "core question" is: Can the various bureaucrats, functionaries and hardcore leftists who have been entrenched in the various and endless halls of the Federal Government for decades, having their pet projects and buddies (and worse) financed by the American Taxpayer, using tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to do so, with essentially no oversight or accountability, are these folks ready to give up their grifts, their positions of power and influence and control, etc., without putting up one heck of a fight?

I think the answer is . . . nope.  The Deep State will fight tooth and nail.

FWIW, I am more or less of the "A Pox On Both Your Houses" point of view relative to how the Federal Government has been run for pretty much all of my adult life.  I am only marginally less annoyed at the Rs than I am at the Ds.

I want Mr. Trump to obey the law, as much as I wanted past administrations to do so.  Moreover, I want Mr. Trump to act in America's best interests, and in those of its citizens.  And I think he's doing that in ways that none of the prior Rs and Ds have been willing to do,  As I see it, Mr. Trump is in his second term, so he doesn't need to worry about re-election.  And he's a billionaire, so he doesn't really need to worry about money for his retirement.  And he's old, so he knows he won't have long after  2028 anyway.  And he spent the last four years fighting against efforts that beggar belief.  And he took an assassin's bullet at a campaign rally, and his immediate and unscripted reaction was to stand up, bloodied, turn to the audience, pump his fist, and shout "Fight, fight, fight!"

I think Mr. Trump is a pretty flawed human being, but he loves America and is willing to advocate for it in ways that his predecessors have not.  I have no obligation to endorse his personal flaws, nor do I expect to agree with every jot and tittle of how he wields the power we gave him.  I want him to obey the law, and I trust that he will (though testing the parameters of executive authority, and encroachments onto that authority, may involve some real wrangling).  I find the "tyrant" charges to be increasingly pathetic, as if even those mouthing such inanities don't even believe what they are saying.  

The entrenched DC folks hate that Mr. Trump is in office.  On that point, Mr. Obama's "elections have consequences" and "I won" pronouncements keep coming to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 24, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That you don’t get the difference is at the root of the problem.

You are really over sensitive if you think warning you “Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada” is something that will likely anger a Canadian if you say it to them is ‘ripping you a new one’, lol.

Did your mom telling you it’s not polite to call someone fat reduced you to tears?

I guess I was expecting more from you specifically, Cal.

Message received.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I was expecting more from you specifically, Cal.

Message received.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is a pity it’s not the message I sent.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Some Canadian grocery stores are putting labels on food saying that nothing in it is sourced from the United States.

The US Travel Association is warning that a lot of Canadian tourists to the United States are cancelling their trips. Numbers are vague but most are suggesting it is about 25% of bookings have cancelled for recreational visits and business trips are at about a 10% cancellation rate.

Turns out threatening to annex your neighbor, close ally, and trade partner has consequences. Who knew?

Let them have fun summering on a nice beach in Nova Scotia and keeping Canadian money in Canada.

Wouldn't that be helping their fellow Canadians, and thus a good things?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

A friend of mine who is an attorney brought this to my attention. She noted that the American Bar Association—an organization that generally avoids partisan endorsements—took the rare step today (February 10) of issuing a public statement insisting that "the government" follow the law. While I recognize that you don’t support all of Trump’s actions, you do seem to support many that the ABA considers so legally problematic that it felt compelled to speak out. Given that this statement is prominently featured on the ABA’s homepage, do you agree with them in insisting that Trump follow the law? If you think he already is, why do you think their legal analysis is incorrect?

To me, the real issue isn’t the trade deficit, illegal immigration, the participation of a handful of transgender athletes in NAIC sports, or even the degree of corruption (or lack thereof) at USAID. The core question is: Are we willing to accept a president who so flagrantly disregards the Constitution?

The ABA Supports the Rule of Law

It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.  

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law. 

The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.

Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.

In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day. 

These actions have forced affected parties to seek relief in the courts, which stand as a bulwark against these violations. We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.   

These actions do not make America stronger. They make us weaker. Many Americans are rightly concerned about how leaders who are elected, confirmed or appointed are proceeding to make changes. The goals of eliminating departments and entire functions do not justify the means when the means are not in accordance with the law. Americans expect better. Even among those who want change, no one wants their neighbor or their family to be treated this way. Yet that is exactly what is happening.   

These actions have real-world consequences. Recently hired employees fear they will lose their jobs because of some matter they were assigned to in the Justice Department or some training they attended in their agency. USAID employees assigned to build programs that benefit foreign countries are being doxed, harassed with name-calling and receiving conflicting information about their employment status. These stories should concern all Americans because they are our family members, neighbors and friends. No American can be proud of a government that carries out change in this way. Neither can these actions be rationalized by discussion of past grievances or appeals to efficiency. Everything can be more efficient, but adherence to the rule of law is paramount. We must be cognizant of the harm being done by these methods. 

Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.

There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.  

We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.

We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.

– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association

 

 

This is what is so astounding to me, the loyalty to him. The first presidency he served in, I told myself I will try to respect the office of the US president and support the best I could, although I didn't vote for him. But now, all I see is chaos, and my country being held hostage. I see the thousands of men/women who died for our constitution and their graves being trampled on. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you favor a statute of limitations when it comes to stealing land, but not for immigrants? Do I have that right?

No.