Wonder how Mr. Justice Boofer will rule?
Now, I haven't read his book. But, I've been involved in many high stakes international negotiations. The anchor baby thing, and the military to the border thing...these are actions which are analogous to the types of gambits I might expect to see.
Non-citizens: "He can't do that, can he?"
- "Maybe he can."
- "Maybe we need to account for that possibility."
- "Maybe I won't go in the next caravan, until this gets figured out."
Voter: "Look at Trump. He's doing something! My man!"
Even if he presently intends not to do these two things, he nonetheless gets the type of behavior he wants by talking about doing these two things. And, he makes the other side look better when they finally come to the table and compromise with something that is far less radical than what he floated in the press. That is an artful deal, when the other side can claim victory with a "compromise" when the "compromise" was what you always wanted from the beginning (even though you said you wanted more).
The pipe bomber and the synagogue massacre have complicated his demagoguery about the caravan and the Soros conspiracy which were the midterm ponies he was trying to ride. Hence, the additional shit stir right before the election about birthright citizenship. The guy is shamelessly hamfisted. But his audience of morons laps it up
he's stated many times that his negotiating tactic is to demand something outrageous and make the other guy feel like he's winning when he gives you exactly what you originally wanted. that could be what's going on here.
I think that he's trying to refocus everybody on something other than right wing violence before the midterms
Glad to see you guys coming to the table on this abuse of power thing. Something tells me it will only last until a Dem is president again. Too bad. Because we could do some good reform together, and rein in the office of the president, so that neither of us has to get upset about these things.
(no message)
I don't hold you to the higher standards that others can achieve. Wouldn't be fair.
immigration) justify Trump’s lawlessness by referencing that which they previously said was unlawful.
You are a beauty.
We have 3 options:
1) Both sides stop misbehaving. Let's set that aside. It won't happen barring a miracle. Can we agree on that?
2) One side misbehaves. That side will win if that condition is allowed to occur. Can we agree that option 2 is untenable?
3) Both sides misbehave. This is happening now. At least the playing field is even, and policies will therefore be decided on an even playing field.
Which option would you go with?
Obviously Option 1 is best, but I think you know it can never happen, so it is really not an option. We really only have Option 2 and Option 3 from which to choose.
Both Options 2 and 3 lead to the inevitable destruction of the Constitution, so the Constitution is a non-issue in our decision as to how to move forward. It is not a variable in this equation. We can set it aside.
Given those two choices as our only choices, Option 3 seems better, because then true policy won't be decided by one side's dirty tricks. Policy will be made by both side's dirty tricks...which is at least more fair.
The only way for the Nation to win this game, is for the Nation to prove me wrong, that Option 1 is viable. Give it your best shot.
against it.
Your almost Jesuitical need to try to complicate and confuse things is pathetic.
I'm also for free beer for every citizen on Friday and Saturday nights. I'm for there being a heaven. I'm for everyone having free will, and no one doing anything wrong. I'm against bad stuff.
But, the important question facing us is not whether we are for or against perfect fantasies, utopias or dystopias. The most important question is this: When choosing from among a number of imperfect but likely realities, which do we choose? You insist on choosing utopia. I'm trying not to be distracted by utopia.
Frankly, I use your approach in day to day life. I don't worry about bad people. I just do what I think is right, and if I get screwed or taken advantage of because I did the right thing, then so be it. I'm comfortable with that. I'm just not sure that approach works, or even should work, with politics.
It’s not that hard. You have this compelling need to continually justify bad behavior by those you are politically simpatico with by equivalence comparisons to your opponents.
Yet, you also claim not to even live that way.......why......I assume because you know it’s wrong. Politics like anything else isn’t a special exception to the rules of life. You either live them correctly or you don’t.
I don't cower in a corner because I can't get what I want. I make the call on the best option available. It's pretty simple. I don't know why you can't understand that. Choose from among the viable possibilities when voting, and leave the utopias to theoretical discussions.
acting badly. Calling out govt abuse, no matter who is doing it. Supposedly how you try to do things personally.
We don’t always succeed but we try.
Two wrongs don't make a right and such. When I reflect on things like Michael Moore's comments that Trump is the Human Molotov Cocktail to blow the whole system up, I get the sentiment and why disaffected people would want that. But in practice, it's just a worse version of what you wanted to replace. Zero progress made.
(no message)
Molotov cocktails blow shit up, not make things better.
For example we had Obama who unlawfully used executive power. Trump makes him look like a piker. Who knows what the next lefty wil try to do? The example though is clearly there.
Option 4: A third, much less corrupt Grass Roots party emerges.
Option 5: civil war.
The 14th Amendment does read: “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.” However, this amendment was focused on protecting the rights of former slaves and their children. There are no cases applying it in the context of illegal immigrants. This presents a dilemma for the strict constructionists/originalists on the SC who might be inclined to rule against citizenship for such children but who tend to insist on adherence to the letter of the law.
Although a very old SCOTUS case, Wong Kim Ark does a good job of going over the possible interpretations of the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark was the child of “permanent residents” (as it was defined then), and the court ruled he was indeed a citizen. I could see a law or executive order that excludes children of undocumented parents from citizenship as being a legitimate argument.
The dissent in this case also provides some clues as to how to construct a law or policy on this topic.
I’m not advocating one way or the other, but there are colorable legal arguments that can be made in support of Trump’s position on this
Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/#tab-opinion-1918089
(no message)
FOX & Friends said so.
History and law, he wrote, “irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens ….The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
It wasn’t the resident alien status that the decision turned on, rather on the fact of birth in the U.S. The language is clear.
Although who knows with the boofinator now there. Would prove my point that activist courts include both libs and conservatives.
In any event, an executive order to the contrary is unconstitutional under existing law.
Until the matter is heard and ruled upon the constitutionality of the order is undecided.
Now if an activist SCOTUS wants to change the law to distinguish Wong, then it won’t be unconstitutional. But right now it clearly is.
(no message)
And Trump has no power or authority over it without a constitutional amendment.
overturning or distinguishing Wong.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
When the going gets rough, the Trumpies just change the subject.
(no message)
(no message)