Craig, you are cracking me up! Being snotty is not a substitute for knowing what you are talking about.
There is little, if anything, for SCOTUS to hash out on Birthright Citizenship. You genuinely would benefit from reading the 14th Amendment, of which there is no equivalent in the UK. It should be 9-0 striking down the administration's assertions on this issue. Only these nutty enablers around him would pursue such claims.
I can see that your mind is made up. If SEVEN experts can't get you there, neither can I. But seriously, maybe you can find a lawyer friend whom you trust to go through some of this with you. Try being more inquisitive and less sarcastic.
“ So I ask you to challenge yourself: Don’t think about how you should spend your time. Think about how you already choose to. Be honest.” Well, an honest heroin addict will admit he chooses to use heroin, but that is no argument for heroin use.
"Israel must survive in order for the Jewish people to survive!" J. Biden 10/8/2023
"I'm not in the mood for Yom HaShoah this year. Right now, we have our own Holocaust. I don't have it in me to think about Holocausts of the past. We're living in a horror show. It's not the wholesale murder of six million defenseless Jews & millions of other people. What we're living through is not a Holocaust. I know but it's bad. Once again, much of the world couldn't care, or hopes it gets done. Once again, lots of Jews have already died & this is far from over." Excerpted from Daniel Gordis, Israel from the Inside 4/23/2025
I am astounded by the amounts of federal $$ spent by our government at our major well-endowed billionaire universities while at the same time our government appears unable to redirect those same taxpayer billions toward needy healthcare, housing and food.
How does our government conclude that billions spent for questionable studies at Harvard and other like institutions are more valuable to us who they govern than the health and wellbeing of our hourly wage workers?
I will pose this question to every politician I encounter and suggest my fellow taxpayers do the same. I am hoping for a thoughtful justification of these spent billions however I am doubtful I will ever get that well-reasoned justification in answer.
The amount of federal spending on universities with obese endowments is in itself wrong, regardless of whether it could've better spent elsewhere. It should be returned to the taxpyayers.
"Those Who Saw the Holocaust Coming" To be able to see the future is the ultimate skill or gift. The Zionists understood human nature, recognized the ease of blaming Jews, and saw "political instability and disorder."
I don't know how many people in this thread are attorneys, but having a legal background helps here. In this collection of short essays, the legal experts are not debating policy. They are assessing the administration's tactics in the federal courts and the legality of DJT's most brazen EOs.
You don't need to have TDS to be shocked to see DOJ attorneys lying to federal judges and abandoning prosecutions for political gain (Eric Adams). Several of these experts support Trump on policy, but they can't bring themselves to condone this behavior.
No credible expert will defend lying to the court and/or pursuing obviously unconstitutional executive orders. That should tell you something.
Am I giving too much credence to the honor of DOJ attorneys? Were your colleagues lying routinely to the court? Did you all face many contempt proceedings? I have great respect for the handful of DOJ attorneys whom I know well. But your candid insiders' view could deepen our understanding here.
From your tone, I am not sure you will take me seriously. But let's start with Birthright Citizenship. The EO appears to directly contravene the 14th Amendment. You should read some of the court opinions on this. Once you read them, let me know what you think. You are welcome in advance.
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.
Birthright citizenship will end up being hashed out by SCOTUS, as it should be. I believe that the UK has ended birthright citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen of the UK. That also may well be where we end up. I don't need to read any court opinions about this as it would be a waste of time, since SCOTUS will have the last say,.....at least until the composition of SCOTUS changes, then like Roe v. Wade, it could be changed again. So, the EO is in effect challenging whether or not birthright citizenship extends to the children of non citizens-that challenge is not Unconstitutional. What's the next Unconstitutional item on your list?
Apropos comments of manufacturers here on Trump's idiotic tariffs, clearly there have never been such stupid economic policies since Smoot-Hawley, and Smoot-Hawley at least didn't change daily for dessert. Except for donors who are probably getting repaid in regular tradable insider info on what Trump's next swerve will be so they can short or long the market, other American capitalists who backed Trump must be having serious buyer's remorse. There's no comparison between the (yes) transitory inflation of Biden-Harris, and an otherwise historically strong economy and stock market, and all that Trump has brought, and will yet bring, down the capitalist pike.
I agree with many commenters here: TFP, in order to remain free, needs to include opposing views. Otherwise it’s another NYTimes echo chamber.
Geezus. Everyday Americans live with uncertainty all the time. Maybe it's time for Wall Street to put on some big boy pants and act like adults.
Craig, you are cracking me up! Being snotty is not a substitute for knowing what you are talking about.
There is little, if anything, for SCOTUS to hash out on Birthright Citizenship. You genuinely would benefit from reading the 14th Amendment, of which there is no equivalent in the UK. It should be 9-0 striking down the administration's assertions on this issue. Only these nutty enablers around him would pursue such claims.
I can see that your mind is made up. If SEVEN experts can't get you there, neither can I. But seriously, maybe you can find a lawyer friend whom you trust to go through some of this with you. Try being more inquisitive and less sarcastic.
Requiring disclosure of foreign funding as a condition to receipt of federal monies seems eminently sensible.
“ So I ask you to challenge yourself: Don’t think about how you should spend your time. Think about how you already choose to. Be honest.” Well, an honest heroin addict will admit he chooses to use heroin, but that is no argument for heroin use.
Yom HaShoah:
"Israel must survive in order for the Jewish people to survive!" J. Biden 10/8/2023
"I'm not in the mood for Yom HaShoah this year. Right now, we have our own Holocaust. I don't have it in me to think about Holocausts of the past. We're living in a horror show. It's not the wholesale murder of six million defenseless Jews & millions of other people. What we're living through is not a Holocaust. I know but it's bad. Once again, much of the world couldn't care, or hopes it gets done. Once again, lots of Jews have already died & this is far from over." Excerpted from Daniel Gordis, Israel from the Inside 4/23/2025
I am astounded by the amounts of federal $$ spent by our government at our major well-endowed billionaire universities while at the same time our government appears unable to redirect those same taxpayer billions toward needy healthcare, housing and food.
How does our government conclude that billions spent for questionable studies at Harvard and other like institutions are more valuable to us who they govern than the health and wellbeing of our hourly wage workers?
I will pose this question to every politician I encounter and suggest my fellow taxpayers do the same. I am hoping for a thoughtful justification of these spent billions however I am doubtful I will ever get that well-reasoned justification in answer.
Respectfully
"a country divided can not stand" Abe Lincoln
The amount of federal spending on universities with obese endowments is in itself wrong, regardless of whether it could've better spent elsewhere. It should be returned to the taxpyayers.
"Those Who Saw the Holocaust Coming" To be able to see the future is the ultimate skill or gift. The Zionists understood human nature, recognized the ease of blaming Jews, and saw "political instability and disorder."
- All three are pertinent today.
"Three Constitutional Law Experts Discuss the Rule of Law Under Trump".
If you have to anoint someone with the title "Expert" you are already protesting too much. List their credentials; then let us decide.
But that would defeat FP's purpose, which is to ensure THEY decide.
Be careful what you wish for — the next guy in a ruthless communist regime is usually worse.
Thank you, River, for including pieces about Zionism and Anne Frank on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Yep.
The foreign money disclosure… well know for sure which Ivy League universities are Zionist! Lol
The News section is so much better, thank you! It’s like turning down the tinnitus in my ears—it’s a sea of calm after all the opinion pieces.
I don't know how many people in this thread are attorneys, but having a legal background helps here. In this collection of short essays, the legal experts are not debating policy. They are assessing the administration's tactics in the federal courts and the legality of DJT's most brazen EOs.
You don't need to have TDS to be shocked to see DOJ attorneys lying to federal judges and abandoning prosecutions for political gain (Eric Adams). Several of these experts support Trump on policy, but they can't bring themselves to condone this behavior.
No credible expert will defend lying to the court and/or pursuing obviously unconstitutional executive orders. That should tell you something.
I'm a former federal prosecutor, who worked at DOJ in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations. Couldn't disagree with you more.
Can you flesh this out a bit?
Am I giving too much credence to the honor of DOJ attorneys? Were your colleagues lying routinely to the court? Did you all face many contempt proceedings? I have great respect for the handful of DOJ attorneys whom I know well. But your candid insiders' view could deepen our understanding here.
Please provide a list the "obviously Unconstitutional executive orders", along with why they are actually Unconstitutional. Thanks in advance.
From your tone, I am not sure you will take me seriously. But let's start with Birthright Citizenship. The EO appears to directly contravene the 14th Amendment. You should read some of the court opinions on this. Once you read them, let me know what you think. You are welcome in advance.
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.
Birthright citizenship will end up being hashed out by SCOTUS, as it should be. I believe that the UK has ended birthright citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen of the UK. That also may well be where we end up. I don't need to read any court opinions about this as it would be a waste of time, since SCOTUS will have the last say,.....at least until the composition of SCOTUS changes, then like Roe v. Wade, it could be changed again. So, the EO is in effect challenging whether or not birthright citizenship extends to the children of non citizens-that challenge is not Unconstitutional. What's the next Unconstitutional item on your list?
I thought it was Thursday
Apropos comments of manufacturers here on Trump's idiotic tariffs, clearly there have never been such stupid economic policies since Smoot-Hawley, and Smoot-Hawley at least didn't change daily for dessert. Except for donors who are probably getting repaid in regular tradable insider info on what Trump's next swerve will be so they can short or long the market, other American capitalists who backed Trump must be having serious buyer's remorse. There's no comparison between the (yes) transitory inflation of Biden-Harris, and an otherwise historically strong economy and stock market, and all that Trump has brought, and will yet bring, down the capitalist pike.