• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

Darat said:
Trump won't do anything. It's served his purpose by him making the claim, it's now a "fact" for his core supporters. And if it doesn't happen it's not his fault it will be those terrible Democrats and RINOs who blocked it because they want to flood the country with undesirables.
Click to expand...

Little too late for that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The courts don't matter? What are you taking about? In the scenario the courts matter a lot.
Click to expand...

I made a mistake. One that I made with you before and recently warned others about. I got sucked into one of your dialectics. This is sophomoric sophistry. You do it on every thread to virtually every discussion. It's tiresome and annoying. .

This started off with a reasonable discussion why POTUS cannot ignore judicial review. I think it's a very important part of how the US governs itself. But you didn't take heed to the citations especially the precedent of the about 200 times the court overruling Acts of the other branches of government.

I'm disappointed, mostly in myself for getting sucked in again. I will try not to let it happen again.
 
acbytesla said:
I made a mistake. One that I made with you before and recently warned others about. I got sucked into one of your dialectics. This is sophomoric sophistry. You do it on every thread to virtually every discussion. It's tiresome and annoying. .

This started off with a reasonable discussion why POTUS cannot ignore judicial review. I think it's a very important part of how the US governs itself. But you didn't take heed to the citations especially the precedent of the about 200 times the court overruling Acts of the other branches of government.

I'm disappointed, mostly in myself for getting sucked in again. I will try not to let it happen again.
Click to expand...

I never disagreed with judicial review or that courts can overturna law

Also, this isn't my argument. Departmentalism is a thing. I didn't invent that. Maybe it is an issue of it being filtered through my love of dialectic, but it is a discussion in originalist circles.
 
acbytesla said:
I made a mistake. One that I made with you before and recently warned others about. I got sucked into one of your dialectics. This is sophomoric sophistry. You do it on every thread to virtually every discussion. It's tiresome and annoying. .

This started off with a reasonable discussion why POTUS cannot ignore judicial review. I think it's a very important part of how the US governs itself.
Click to expand...

That's the trick. It starts looking reasonable and engaging, and then the trap is sprung.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The courts don't matter? What are you taking about? In the scenario the courts matter a lot.
Click to expand...

Bob, you've been arguing that even if the SCOTUS rules a law unconstitutional (and therefore of no force and effect), that the executive branch MUST still try to enforce it if they believe that said decision is wrong.

That interpretation would give the executive branch the ability to detain someone arbitrarily, and to keep them in detention even if a court rules that they are not guilty because said official feels their duty is to keep that prisoner detained because in the opinion of that official that person was in contravention of the (invalid) law.

Congratulations, you've just argued your way into a dictatorship.
 
Border Reiver said:
Bob, you've been arguing that even if the SCOTUS rules a law unconstitutional (and therefore of no force and effect), that the executive branch MUST still try to enforce it if they believe that said decision is wrong.

That interpretation would give the executive branch the ability to detain someone arbitrarily, and to keep them in detention even if a court rules that they are not guilty because said official feels their duty is to keep that prisoner detained because in the opinion of that official that person was in contravention of the (invalid) law.

Congratulations, you've just argued your way into a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a crappy system. This is why I oppose it.
 
Border Reiver said:
Bob, you've been arguing that even if the SCOTUS rules a law unconstitutional (and therefore of no force and effect), that the executive branch MUST still try to enforce it if they believe that said decision is wrong.

That interpretation would give the executive branch the ability to detain someone arbitrarily, and to keep them in detention even if a court rules that they are not guilty because said official feels their duty is to keep that prisoner detained because in the opinion of that official that person was in contravention of the (invalid) law.

Congratulations, you've just argued your way into a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Except that the folks within the executive branch have no obligation to obey unlawful orders.
 
Bob001 said:
He doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment itself and subsequent court decisions have determined that people born here are citizens. Period.
Click to expand...
But he can test the interpretation by an executive order, and the SJC could reverse previous interpretations

I don't hope for any such outcome, of course.
 
phiwum said:
The same is true of every person in power.

They can do what they're not prevented from doing.
Click to expand...

True. GWB did it with torture. FDR did it with Japanese internment camps.

But that's the past. This is now. The question is, are we okay with DJT doing it now. And, if we are, do we think DJT has the restraint of GWB or FDR that it won't go farther from there?
 
Upchurch said:
True. GWB did it with torture. FDR did it with Japanese internment camps.

But that's the past. This is now. The question is, are we okay with DJT doing it now. And, if we are, do we think DJT has the restraint of GWB or FDR that it won't go farther from there?
Click to expand...


And FDR went pretty far. He even made Peru send us all their citizens of Japanese descent so we could put them into concentration camps here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom