This must be thrilling for the Republican Trump cult. The states that didn’t bring the lawsuit can disregard the Constitution and follow Trump’s executive order instead. If this blatantly partisan Supreme Court eventually decides to make it official, that Trump can alter the Constitution without having to pass an Amendment, then he won’t even need to worry about passing his butt ugly bill. He can just keep ruling by imperial edict.
Seems to me, a universal injunction is appropriate when the question is, *does the Constitution mean what is says?"--but this court has already held that the 14th doesn't apply to Trump's authoritarian whims.
Joe, thank you for posting this article. I am trying to wrap my head around the fact that a Supreme Court Justice, Amy Cony Barrett, said this: “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
Anchor baby issue should be an easy fix. Eliminate it! The scammers abound. Are there exceptions, most likely, but the default should be 'not a citizen'. Become citizens the right way
the legislation/amendment should say. Most Americans likely agree that the system has been abused. (await the hate from this group) 🙄
I hope it doesn’t seem too hateful to suggest that Trump should uphold the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend, even though he denied knowing he was supposed to. That would include the 14th Amendment, whether he likes it or not.
Of course he upholds the constitution. Hoping the anchor baby goes away. Litigation has begun, let it play out. Along with the litigation, clean up the rule allowing the 'fake' citizens. Thay may take well into 47's 3rd term 😊
Trump cannot change the Constitution to suit his whims, although we all know he would like to do so. The US Constitution can be amended through a two-step process outlined in Article V: proposal and ratification. Amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Once proposed, amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by state conventions.
Exactly! No fooling us legal eagles. That amendment process may take us to his 3d term🤣 The other process has started with the EO and the litigation filed in WA state. (I think) so, he is only proceeding in a legal manner. Time and process will be determinate. I assume you, as most Americans, don't agree with the anchor baby 'loophole'. Let's get rid of it altogether demanding legal immigration.
Your fawning defense of Trump is reminiscent of the disingenuous rationalizations of disbarred lawyers like Giuliani, Chesebro, Eastman, et al. We are all well aware that Trump called for termination of the Constitution because he didn’t like the election results. And that’s the least of his offenses.
We all aren't aware Michael. Most of the public are beyond those issues. I would think you have more current issues to discuss. Like his massive wins this week. Border closed, stocks up, oil & eggs down, tariffs bringing in billions. Oh, the peace treaties, taking down Iran's immediate nuclear ambitions. Come on give the guy props😄
This must be thrilling for the Republican Trump cult. The states that didn’t bring the lawsuit can disregard the Constitution and follow Trump’s executive order instead. If this blatantly partisan Supreme Court eventually decides to make it official, that Trump can alter the Constitution without having to pass an Amendment, then he won’t even need to worry about passing his butt ugly bill. He can just keep ruling by imperial edict.
Trump v CASA is a travesty; I hope that you are right, and that it is a brief and narrow one.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-trump-v-casa/
Seems to me, a universal injunction is appropriate when the question is, *does the Constitution mean what is says?"--but this court has already held that the 14th doesn't apply to Trump's authoritarian whims.
Joe, thank you for posting this article. I am trying to wrap my head around the fact that a Supreme Court Justice, Amy Cony Barrett, said this: “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
Amy Coney Barrett was channeling her inner Lewis Carroll. And James Madison was spinning in his grave.
Anchor baby issue should be an easy fix. Eliminate it! The scammers abound. Are there exceptions, most likely, but the default should be 'not a citizen'. Become citizens the right way
the legislation/amendment should say. Most Americans likely agree that the system has been abused. (await the hate from this group) 🙄
I hope it doesn’t seem too hateful to suggest that Trump should uphold the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend, even though he denied knowing he was supposed to. That would include the 14th Amendment, whether he likes it or not.
Mike: Trump's unconstitutional order creates stateless infants. To me (and to you, I think), that is a hateful policy. And that's the point.
Joe
47 has put the anchor issue front and center. Great conversation in which America should be engaged.
Lynn
Of course he upholds the constitution. Hoping the anchor baby goes away. Litigation has begun, let it play out. Along with the litigation, clean up the rule allowing the 'fake' citizens. Thay may take well into 47's 3rd term 😊
Trump cannot change the Constitution to suit his whims, although we all know he would like to do so. The US Constitution can be amended through a two-step process outlined in Article V: proposal and ratification. Amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Once proposed, amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by state conventions.
Angie
Exactly! No fooling us legal eagles. That amendment process may take us to his 3d term🤣 The other process has started with the EO and the litigation filed in WA state. (I think) so, he is only proceeding in a legal manner. Time and process will be determinate. I assume you, as most Americans, don't agree with the anchor baby 'loophole'. Let's get rid of it altogether demanding legal immigration.
Your fawning defense of Trump is reminiscent of the disingenuous rationalizations of disbarred lawyers like Giuliani, Chesebro, Eastman, et al. We are all well aware that Trump called for termination of the Constitution because he didn’t like the election results. And that’s the least of his offenses.
We all aren't aware Michael. Most of the public are beyond those issues. I would think you have more current issues to discuss. Like his massive wins this week. Border closed, stocks up, oil & eggs down, tariffs bringing in billions. Oh, the peace treaties, taking down Iran's immediate nuclear ambitions. Come on give the guy props😄