Well Ms. Kelly, I've let you know my thoughts on your post. I had hoped to engage in thoughtful dialog on the "Unconstitutional EO's" issue with you. It appears that this is not in the cards. How unfortunate.
Well Ms. Kelly, I've let you know my thoughts on your post. I had hoped to engage in thoughtful dialog on the "Unconstitutional EO's" issue with you. It appears that this is not in the cards. How unfortunate.
1. If you have an article from a reputable source arguing that the Birthright Citizenship is an open legal question and that the EO was brought in good faith, I am happy to read it and comment.
2. For the sake of argument, even if Birthright Citizenship were an open question, then the administration should have sought legislation from Congress. No way should such a profound change be enacted by fiat. Congress makes the laws, and the Executive enforces them. With Republicans in control of both houses, this is the more democratic way to go.
3. Of course, legislation can still be voided by the federal courts. So, perhaps only way to get this done in the long run is by amending the constitution.
4. In general, let's see by the end of the year how many of these Executive Orders end up enjoined by a federal Court of Appeals or above. While the administration is likely to abandon plenty of them, I suspect that dozens of these EOs will be struck down on the merits in the appellate process.
5. When I discussed obviously unconstitutional EOs in my original post, another area I had in mind is the range of "shakedown" EOs against Big Law firms and universities. I'm not always happy with the way these institutions operate, but the idea that law firms should be targeted because they employed or used to employ government lawyers who worked on Trump cases is crazy. It's a shame that so many of them have capitulated, but the firms that do stay the course through litigation have very strong chances of success. If these cases go far enough, I suspect the administration will drop them and declare success anyway.
Trump, like all Presidents, is pushing to see where the limits to his power are. That most Presidents have done this is an indisputable fact, and not at all "Unconstitutional". I'd imagine that President Trump knew/knows that many of his EO's would be challenged in court.
If all of the Amendments were rigid in their interpretation, there is no way that there could be any laws prohibiting gun ownership, as the 2nd Amendment is pretty specific that the right to bear arms is not to be infringed upon. Yet there are a plethora of laws that attempt to do just that-and they don't come from Congress. Are those laws Unconstitutional?
As to the "shakedown" of Universities-where in the Constitution is the requirement that the government funnel money to any University? That "right" simply doesn't exist. All government money comes with strings attached to it. If those Universities want to feed at the government trough they need to follow the rules set up to get that funding.
You have yet to show an actual example of Unconstitutional actions taken by this administration. Your personal dislike of an EO doesn't make it Unconstitutional.
Well Ms. Kelly, I've let you know my thoughts on your post. I had hoped to engage in thoughtful dialog on the "Unconstitutional EO's" issue with you. It appears that this is not in the cards. How unfortunate.
Let's leave it at this:
1. If you have an article from a reputable source arguing that the Birthright Citizenship is an open legal question and that the EO was brought in good faith, I am happy to read it and comment.
2. For the sake of argument, even if Birthright Citizenship were an open question, then the administration should have sought legislation from Congress. No way should such a profound change be enacted by fiat. Congress makes the laws, and the Executive enforces them. With Republicans in control of both houses, this is the more democratic way to go.
3. Of course, legislation can still be voided by the federal courts. So, perhaps only way to get this done in the long run is by amending the constitution.
4. In general, let's see by the end of the year how many of these Executive Orders end up enjoined by a federal Court of Appeals or above. While the administration is likely to abandon plenty of them, I suspect that dozens of these EOs will be struck down on the merits in the appellate process.
5. When I discussed obviously unconstitutional EOs in my original post, another area I had in mind is the range of "shakedown" EOs against Big Law firms and universities. I'm not always happy with the way these institutions operate, but the idea that law firms should be targeted because they employed or used to employ government lawyers who worked on Trump cases is crazy. It's a shame that so many of them have capitulated, but the firms that do stay the course through litigation have very strong chances of success. If these cases go far enough, I suspect the administration will drop them and declare success anyway.
Trump, like all Presidents, is pushing to see where the limits to his power are. That most Presidents have done this is an indisputable fact, and not at all "Unconstitutional". I'd imagine that President Trump knew/knows that many of his EO's would be challenged in court.
If all of the Amendments were rigid in their interpretation, there is no way that there could be any laws prohibiting gun ownership, as the 2nd Amendment is pretty specific that the right to bear arms is not to be infringed upon. Yet there are a plethora of laws that attempt to do just that-and they don't come from Congress. Are those laws Unconstitutional?
As to the "shakedown" of Universities-where in the Constitution is the requirement that the government funnel money to any University? That "right" simply doesn't exist. All government money comes with strings attached to it. If those Universities want to feed at the government trough they need to follow the rules set up to get that funding.
You have yet to show an actual example of Unconstitutional actions taken by this administration. Your personal dislike of an EO doesn't make it Unconstitutional.