This is about ginning up his base. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 with southern states originally opposing it, with the exception of Tennessee. This is post civil war and was intended to guarantee citizenship and civil rights to former slaves and all African-Americans.
I wish I could agree, but everything has changed.
- The country is divided into two information communities. Our outrage would be met by their outrage.
- If the Trump Court ruled in favor of the president, some other outrage would be perpetrated to move the issue into the past.
- Dems would be extremely frightened of running on a platform of restoring citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’
- The political-legal landscape would quickly solidify.
However: I do agree that this court would likely not find 5 votes to uphold this Executive Order.
That’s precisely the GOP objective, though. To scrap the rule of law. The only question is whether the judicial branch of the party will go along with that.
1 Like
I know things changed but have you seen them able to do something blatantly unconstitutional yet?
And for the love of god people, we’re getting ready to take over the House and put serious dents in their senate majority if we don’t take the senate too.
4 Likes
We are at least spared a legal dipsy doodle from Antonin Scalia, who would have found a way to agree with Trump, no doubt.
I’ll consider that lucky break!!!
1 Like
I like how he talks about both returning to the rule of law and ignoring the constitution in the same interview. That’s some impressive hypocrisy right there, even for a republican.
2 Likes
The right wingers have been falsely claiming that the Democrats will do exactly that. One of the reasons they hate us so much.
The point is, they have been, for a long time, indoctrinating their followers to believe that such non-constitutional skullduggery is possible. And being the party of ends-justifying-means, it’s easy to imagine that the GOP would give it a try.
Enter now Lindsey:
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/413832-graham-to-introduce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship
1 Like
They all got down on their knees for O’Kavanaugh.
The so-called originalists would point out that the 14th had nothing to say about immigrants.
Well, no. But they have torn down so much of our functioning Democracy that there’s little need to imagine what they’d like to do, since they’re talking openly about their plans.
The growing urgency and sense of panic emanating from the GOP right now is probably being driven by the midterms.
I’m worried, but I hope you’re right.
He made this statement today to change the news topic from Pittsburgh and pipe bombs.
Quit worrying. If they tried this, I truly believe it would go like this: the ACLU would file a suit. The trial court would hold with the ACLU. It would be appealed, and the appellate court would uphold the trial court. The SCOTUS would refuse to take the case.
2 Likes
“I would like to see us get back to rule of law,” Scalise said, before referring to the migrants and asylum seekers traveling through Mexico on the way to the U.S. border.
Fine words for someone who thinks the president* should be able to overturn a Constitutional amendment by executive fiat.
1 Like
I do hope you’re right.
My handle could well have been Gloomy Gus or, perhaps,
Eeyore.
1 Like
Well just to back up what I’ve already said, if the SCOTUS heard a case where the Executive had attempted to amend the constitution through fiat, I do not believe that 5 justices would say he can do that. I don’t believe any of them would, frankly.
1 Like
We’re missing the point. The question is: can we make it retroactive? In that event, Trump fails to meet even the rather lame criteria for serving as “President.”