DACA And The Costs Of Constitutional Short Sellers

Statue_of_Liberty_7500px-Philippine-stock-market-boardBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the decision of President Donald Trump to rescind DACA and send the issue back to Congress with a six-month grace period.  While I support some accommodation for those brought here as young children and hope that Congress will pass new legislation, I still view DACA as a flagrantly legislative act by President Barack Obama carried out through his unilateral executive authority.

President Trump’s expected announcement that he is terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has met with widespread criticism over the potential cost to roughly 800,000 children of undocumented parents. While I agree with the same concern over the status of these individuals, I do not agree with the same criticism of sending DACA back to Congress. DACA was unilaterally ordered by President Obama after Congress refused to approve the program.

Some of us criticized the action as a circumvention of the legislative branch that undermined our system of the separation of powers. But because they liked the result, Democratic members yielded their institutional power to the White House and helped create an unchecked presidency. With Trump using the same authority to pursue his own policies, Democratic leaders now want to radically expand the powers of the judiciary to block an uber presidency of their own making. They have become constitutional short sellers who dump core principles as soon as they raise political costs.

NY-AG-Eric-SchneidermanJPG-745x45083Xj5Zh3_400x400New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced that they would challenge Trump’s decision in federal court. While they declined to give details of this extraordinary challenge, they would presumably be asking a court to say that Trump could not use the same power to rescind DACA that Obama used to create it. Since the power is the same, what remains is the merits of the policy, something courts have long avoided under the political question doctrine. They would have to say that undocumented individuals can be allowed to stay but not ordered to leave by executive order.

In the market, short sellers will sell a security in the belief that its value is declining, allowing them to buy it back later at a lower price for a profit. Constitutional short selling follows the same logic, but instead of undermining a financial asset, they undermine a constitutional system. Democrats want to oppose Trump, willing to yield power to the courts, as they did for the last eight years with regard to the executive branch. The constitutional short seller hopes that by dumping inconvenient principles, they will be able later to regain control of the system. The problem is that, unlike the markets, the constitutional system is not particularly elastic. Such changes can fundamentally alter our government.

The temptation to become a short seller is irresistible for politicians who often find it difficult to see beyond the next election. However, Schneiderman is the highest-ranking lawyer in the state of New York. Rather than articulate a constitutional principle that would negate Trump’s use of the same power used (with his support) by Obama, Schneiderman simply said, “President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program would be cruel, gratuitous and devastating to tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and I will sue to protect them.”

President_Barack_ObamaDuring the previous administration, I testified repeatedly about the dangers of the unilateral actions taken by Obama (whom I voted for in 2008). Two years ago, I even wrote a column warning that Democrats should consider the prospect of these same powers under health care and immigration being wielded by a President Trump rather than a President Obama. Yet, in one of the strangest demonstrations in history, Democrats rapturously applauded when Obama said that he would simply circumvent their branch because Congress did not yield to his demands for DACA and other measures.

From a constitutional perspective, it looked like a mosh pit of self-loathing members, politicians eager to be declared a functional non-entity in our tripartite (now bipartite) system. Unable to yield more authority to the executive branch, these politicians would now inflate the power of the courts to check a president. Imagine if a federal court gave Schneiderman what he wants. A federal judge could simply declare that an executive order is “gratuitous” or too “devastating” to be allowed. What would have been the reaction if a federal judge declared DACA to be gratuitous or cruel to those who are awaiting entry into the country legally? We would have uber judges to match our uber president.

220px-James_MadisonI am admittedly a Madisonian scholar and a constitutional formalist. I believe strongly in the role of Congress in legislation and clear lines of separation between the branches. The separation of powers protects us from the concentration of authority in the hands of a single president or a few jurists. James Madison saw Congress as a way to force majoritarian compromise out of our factional divisions. Sometimes when the country is deeply divided, less gets done until we can reach a consensus. It sometimes takes time, which is a finite and dwindling commodity for presidents. The process is not pretty or easy, but it has one thing to recommend it: We are still here. It is the balance of the three branches that has brought us stability through economic to social to political upheavals.

Trump’s decision will return this question to where it should have remained: Congress. Presidents do not have the option to go it alone in our system. Obama failed to pass DACA in Congress, and he was left with only two choices. He had to either compromise or change Congress. Sometimes when the country is politically divided, less gets done until we can reach a consensus. However, that consensus is found in the legislative process, not through presidential or judicial proclamations.

Where Obama used this authority to circumvent Congress on DACA, Trump is using it to return DACA to Congress. After failing to pass this program earlier, members may now be able to succeed by reaching a compromise with their Republican colleagues. Regardless of the outcome, however, the importance of re-establishing an equal legislative branch is paramount for our system and our future. As for Schneiderman, he should rethink his challenge before more constitutional short sales turn a great Constitution into a worthless penny stock.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

254 thoughts on “DACA And The Costs Of Constitutional Short Sellers”

  1. The political branches have always had the natural tendency to seek their desired ends irrespective of the Constitution. Any means justify the ends. Trump touts the rule of law here (correctly) but would likely throw it under the bus if if fit his ends.

    This is where the Madisonian system with the judicial branch must step up. They must not give credence to these lawsuits.

    1. ‪@POTUS rescind DACA sedition qualifying from unconstitutional is another treason same executive order impostor @BarackObama free of charge And exacerbating violence in street.‬

      ‪DACA pure sedition impose by BO now was been rescinded by unconstitutional so @AGOWA must to prosecute @POTUS44 FOR violated constitution and go to Guantanamo prison by treasons.‬

      The congress not repairs an dreamer criminal the congress only recovery American dreams violentated by criminal cartel @GOP @DNC linking elite conservative and liberal of traitors who designated president supplant inalienable right of votes will secret and appointed your own judges to breaking power independence to assessinate the work of democracy and institututionsly of life democratic for seeking of destroyed America union 50 sovereign states one country one nation We together build the nation, we all American citizens are equal before the law, We In US constitution trust. constitutions.com

  2. The most compassionate thing a government can do for the people is to provide them the security of their natural right to life, liberty and property that can only come from a respect for the rule of law. The least compassionate thing a government can do is to create insecurity in those rights by subordinating the rule of law to the rule of man.

    For all those that want to ignore the rule of law for the sake of compassion, you are actually undermining the foundation that is intended to provide future security of rights for everyone. That’s not compassionate, that’s pure ignorance.

    1. Your statement is very clear, but the lefties can only see compassion if it is immediate and beneficial to them (votes, subsidies etc.) or how they feel about themselves. They leave the future to someone else like the US debt to their children or kick the can down the road on security issues.

  3. “Where Obama used this authority to circumvent Congress on DACA, Trump is using it to return DACA to Congress. ”

    That is all that needs be said.
    One is either FOR the Constitution or AGAINST the Constitution.

  4. Trump is a very flawed man. But even his stiffest critics when being honest admit he has a heartfelt feeling for DACA young adults and wants this problem solved correctly, by Congress.

      1. Yes Comrade. And what else did your programmer have you lined uip to say or is it just a tweet length mini thought?

      2. Really doesn’t matter. What matters is what our do-nothing Congress thinks. The tricks presented to obstruct debate will be hilarious!

    1. Kelly argued for the six months. Trump would have probably thrown them out immediately. Remember the first botched set of executive orders that left people stranded at airports.

      1. No but I remember the executive orders that lit a fire under the situtation and got it to the Supreme Court in record time with a very little effect on people at airports other than in the sensationalized propaganda of th eleft. Six or was it seven and most of them on the way before media people went home for the day. Frankly speaking your memory and information bank needs adjuseting but then that’s the job of he party programmers I would suspect.

    2. He is a sadistic narcissist, a con artist. Anyone who believes a single word out of his mouth is nuts.

      1. Your statement is irrelevant. The matter is back to where it belongs. The congress. Now whether that lot decides to do something is another issue. I am sure they are hating this, as they will have to take a position at some point, and it is basically a no-win situation for them. But they are a no-win organization for us, so I guess there’s that.

    3. Trump is a raging A-hole. He is so in love with himself that there’s no room in his life for anyone else. Everything is all about him: how much money he allegedly has, his accessory former model third wife who must always be seen in CFM pumps, his bleached daughters, his “amazing” sons. All about him, him, him. Someone suggested that he might deflect the expected criticism of rescinding DACA by punting the ball to Congress, while simultaneously claiming that he “loves” illegals he called “murders and rapists” when he was a candidate, so he went along with it because he’s been such a failure doing things his own way up to now. Nope. Not buying it for one minute. If he really wants to stop illegal immigration, go after the businesses that employ them.

      1. Natacha:

        Can we stop the whopper of a lie that Trump called all illegal Mexicans “murders and rapists”? Here’s exactly what he said which, btw, has been proven true time and again:

        “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

        Some ≠ All

        Hint to our Goebbels wannabe: Propaganda only works when the truth isn’t right in front of you sticking out it’s tongue.

        1. mespo – having taught some, not all of the Mexicans that have come here I can tell you that I have seen more than my fair share of rapists, murders and gangsters. And those are just in the schools.

      2. Not buying it for one minute.

        That’s because you are intellectually bankrupt. You couldn’t afford the truth that water is wet if Trump dumped a bucket of it on your head.

      3. OK Natacha, you don’t like his personality. We got that. You don’t like that his daughter bleaches her hair. I’ll remember that the next time N. Korea launches a missile or explodes a nuke. Woman bleaching their hair is much worse. Trump objected to criminals and racists crossing the border into the US, but said many from the south are good people. We will remember that nukes and rapists are preferrable in your world. However, your basic beliefs on immigration reflect much of Trump’s platform that he has been pushing.

    4. I’d care more about African-American unemployment which stands at 7.7% or double that of white Americans. The Dreamers’ concerns come after our own.

      1. There are African Americans in the Dreamer population. Thirty percent of African Americans are immigrants.

        1. “Thirty percent of African Americans are immigrants.”
          That’s a whopper.

          Of the immigrant population, 9% is black. Of the population of America, 15% is immigrants. 9% of 15% is 1.3%, so with a population of 323 million, that’s a population of 4.2 million black immigrants. Blacks make up 13.3% of the US population, so that’s 43 million. The percentage of black people in the US that are immigrants are 4.2/43, or about 10%, not the 30% you claim.

        2. Per the American Community Survey, there are 39.9 million blacks in the United States, of which 3.6 million are foreign born. There are also about 970,000 mixed race people who are foreign born. About 40% of the mixed-race people in the country have black ancestry. Were that true of the foreign-born population of mixed race, you could add another 370,000. Blacks and mixed-race with black ancestry number just north of 43 million people. Four million in a population of that size amounts to 9%, not 30%. Calculate the difference in odds: [(30/70) / (9/91)] = 4.67. You’re off by a factor of 4.67.

  5. Spot on. Circumventing Congress was not the way to go, no matter how long it might have taken. Obama spent his entire second term waiting around for others to contrive fixes without his participation, while he hired thinktanks and consulted his czars to circumvent US. It is impossible to respect, and an insult to our collective intelligence. Trump hadn’t asctually DONE, anything. No one will be rounded up and shipped off, oh hysterical ones, and now we can actually talk about a legitimate solution. It’s a sign of breadth to be able to discuss a concept without internalizing it. Their parents screwed up, big time. The kids should not have to pay the price for that if they don’t have criminal records. If they do, then, (and many do. Disagree all you like, but for every two dreamers, their are five people doing time. The surveys don’t address that part of the population, and liberals don’t seem to care one whit, either way) well . . .

    One thing I supremely appreciate about your perspective, Jon, is that you actually provide one in the first place (and I don’t always agree!).

  6. As a practical matter, just what country or countries should these DACA kids be dumped into? Should we just assume they are all “Mexicans” and act accordingly, dumping them over the border at gunpoint if necessary?

    The major problem I have is that the crime was committed by their parents. Just what were these kids supposed to do about it?

    1. Apparently you aren’t paying attention which is not unexpected. six months plus a two year period to wind up things. IF they have committed criminal acts. For that group who would would these Kids – which in some definitions means up to 20 years 364 days old – go with? Their families.

      Remember there is another deal in the work again relying on congress to provide the legislation to allow a method of not sending the illegals who are not criminal types back by having them register with letters of recommendatin from their neighbors and employers, copies of taxes paid etc.. and be provided a permit to stay BUT at the end of the list for immigration.

      That one still being discussed as to any of it’s component parts. Something the left is not participating in it appears in their Project Obstruct everything mode.

      Whatever President Trump has done so far is miles and years ahead of the previous regime which did NOTHING other than play the dictator role. same with Iran same with Paris Accords. The left has already rejected our system of government and with it their citizenship and signed up with a foriegn ideology so it’s no wonder they and a few tokens are commenting with a different objective in mind. Re take over the country which means the counter revolution continues.

      I suspect in the end deportation of those types will be necessary. Their choice so the Constitution on revocation of citizenship doesn’t apply. Where to? Not our problem.

      But there is no reason to continue to allow those who rejected the social contract with our Representative Constitutional Republic to continue to meddle and interfere.

  7. This is one of the best posts I’ve read from JT. His Uber Presidency warnings during the last administration have come home to roost and the progressives still don’t understand how they painted themselves into this corner. They see President Trump’s audacity in returning legislative branch power back to the legislative branch as a threat. That’s a pathetic but reasonable fear after being put on the clock to actually do their sworn duty and risk giving their constituents something to measure their performance leading into the 2018 midterms.

    More popcorn please.

  8. Turley, this is where your legal self gratification shows. You place yourself in la la land and miss the bigger picture. It feels good but is only momentary. If you recall, Obama was obstructed by the Republican Congress at the expense of America for nothing more than revenge for passing the ACA and simply because the Republican party held the American people hostage continuously in order to garner power. It is the oldest strategy in the book to create chaos and then offer the solution. The party or President in power looks bad and the creators of the chaos can tout their ideological mumbo jumbo. McConnell is on record stating that regardless of whether it’s good or bad in his view, if it comes from Obama it will be obstructed.

    Obama, in the face of this treasonous behavior by the Republican Party, did things unilaterally, which was in turn seen as treasonous behavior by the Republicans. This is what you get in a two party oligarchical system. All this said, the appropriate place for the issue of ‘dreamers’ is in Congress. Trump did the appropriate and deft thing. He sent it to where it should be, thus negating Obama’s unilateral move-an astute keeping of one of his promises, and taking the responsibility for failure out of his oval office and placing it with the Republican Party; a very sharpish move. Now if the Republicans screw this up, Trump can blame them, as he did with the ACA stuff. If the Republicans pull out a happy ending Trump will, as he has always done, jump in and take all the credit. This was a masterful stroke by the idiot buffoon of a President.

    Trump, by dealing with the Democrats on the budget extension and giving the Republicans exactly what they demanded-the authority to decide stuff like DACA, is finally doing something well. He is still nothing but shame and the Republicans are the anchor tied to the ankles of America, but this was politically astute.

    1. An abject ignorance of the US Constitutional govt. by our Canadian Rain Man is spewed after a masterful post by our host, a Constitutional scholar.

      1. A US Constitutional government run by oligarchs for dupes that actually believe they live in a democratic nation with a Constitution. The Constitution is anything the oligarchs want it to be. Ya needs ta pay attention, gumshoe.

        1. The Constitution is anything the oligarchs want it to be.

          Let’s go with that premise. If that is a bad thing (I believe it is), then what is it supposed to be? Should it be run by a benevolent dictator who makes policy with the force of law when the legislative branch fails to bend to his will? Or, should we desire a President who respects the principle that public sentiment is expressed through the legislative branch, and it is that branch that is responsible for creating the laws that secure the rights of the people equally? We cannot have it both ways. You have to pick a side.

          1. Olly

            I clearly stated that the issues regarding immigration belong in Congress and not as a result of Executive power. This seems to be the consensus of opinion and the wild hair up the nose of Republicans when it came to Obama creating DACA. Now it is where it belongs and Trump can be seen as the force behind that move. It was a deft move. As regards picking a side, this requirement on your part illustrates most clearly the dysfunctional construction of the American system of government. There is no one side or the other. The world is a world of nuance, sometimes almost all one argument and sometimes almost divided equally. The truly democratic nations do not allow private massive funding of the elections of their representatives. They have evolved to have more than ‘one side or the other’. This is what is lacking in the US. By living in a world with ‘one side or the other’ one is frozen and unable to evolve. This serves only the oligarchs. The question is not whether to be on one side or the other, look forward to a benevolent dictator-we are one party more than a dictatorship, but to create the foundation for a real democracy where the best of the best come forward, elected by the people as a whole not just the richest few percent, and bringing with them no obligations to repay anyone but the majority. The US is in denial and woefully insecure in leaving the governing of itself to itself. Americans as a whole seem to believe that they are not capable of governing themselves directly, but need to be governed by an elite group that self perpetuates at the top; ironical given where the idea started in the first place.

            Everyone is an American regardless of what position they hold on how they are governed. However, if you desire to live in a democracy, the paradigms of almost every other democratic nation must be followed. Outlaw the purchasing of representatives by outlawing private funding of elections. This will allow additional parties to express the views of more Americans. Then the quality of candidates will rise and the access by the people to their representatives will be more representative. Americans need to step up to the plate and get rid of this present day oligarchy that serves the status quo.

            I have lived in Canada, France, and these here United States. The US is the only country I have experienced where most of the concerns seems to be ideological rather than logical. This blog illustrates that in taking on the form of some ancient religious synod where so called representatives of the flock debate unendingly over the composition of ancient scripts, before they break for lunch, vacation, whatever. In the other countries I have experienced the discussions revolve around issues, not so much ideologies. I know, I know, if you like it so much why don’t you go there…..? Perhaps I’ll see if it can happen here.

            1. issac – little Jeffy Flake was running 26 points behind his opponent before this DACA thingie. Now, he is between a rock and two hard places. His numbers are in the basement. He really cannot afford to suck up to the Hispanic vote to win the primary. He is a goner.

            2. As regards picking a side, this requirement on your part illustrates most clearly the dysfunctional construction of the American system of government. There is no one side or the other.

              We are dysfunctional but not in construction but rather in execution. We are dysfunctional because the political elites function like a drug cartel. They war among themselves to stay in power, they hook their constituents on their drug of choice, and then they stir panic in their constituents by threatening them with the loss of their drug if the wrong political elites get power.

              There actually is only two sides: one side demands the political elites govern within the limits of their constitutional authority and that no one is above the rule of law; the other side is a government without limits, where a certain class of citizen is held above the rule of law.

              It’s either or and we are currently pretending to be the former while in reality doing the latter. That’s the root of the dysfunction. We have to choose.

        2. Issac, I don’t often concur with your opinion, but do agree with you about the Oligarchy – Repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate to State legislatures as was intended and was the case for 125 years. Think it through. It’s not crazy talk.

      2. In the question of FOR or AGAINST the Constitution our Canadian Friend is AGAINST the Constitution. What the Republicans did was what the American population wanted. That was proven by the election of Donald Trump.

        1. Allan

          Those that read into my criticisms of those that interpret the Constitution to serve their ideological bias, given that the Constitution is interpreted: Scalia-conveniently leaves out the first half of the second amendment, gives individual rights to corporations, etc., are reading in whatever they need to create out of nothing, an argument. The Constitution is not a new thing and in no way unique to the US. Thousands of years ago city states: Carthage, Rome, Sparta, Athens, etc all had Constitutions attempting to create a foundation for their society that would not be perverted by those momentarily in power. It is but a reflection of the people over which it presides at the time. The overriding force of any society is its sense of justice and right/wrong at its point in its social evolution. The US, and indeed all nations, move forward a few steps and then get dragged back from time to time. Overall our world is evolving forward, progressing, as societies, ever integrating one with the other. To say that I am, because of what I have written, against the Constitution, is the clearest illustration of how something can be perverted to suit one’s needs and/or demands. Allan, you seem to be someone capable of anything, capable of perverting the Constitution to suit your self perhaps.

          1. I am glad there is at least one individual leftist that knows some history. That means there is hope for those inflicted with ‘leftitis’ though I believe you may be a bit too far gone, but, I and others are more than willing to help you cure your disease. We always like to help our Canadian friends.

            Issac, think about Athens and what happened to that democracy. That is a threat that both the right and the left can cause to happen. The Constitution stands in the way of both sides.

            “ The overriding force of any society is its sense of justice and right/wrong at its point in its social evolution.”

            Absolutely. Our founders recognized that.

            “To say that I am, because of what I have written, against the Constitution, is the clearest illustration of how something can be perverted to suit one’s needs and/or demands.”

            It is not your criticisms of the Constitution that count as much as how you act with regard to the Constitution. I think that, despite what you think, Scalia is very much on target even if the results of a decision are not a result I desire and even if I disagree with Scalia. I believe that we have ways to modify the Constitution and Congress is the place designated by the Constitution to do it.

            Issac there is a great course on Athens and Sparta on the net and is free. The 8 videos lectures are by Rahe and Hanson along with the ability to read passages of books free of charge.. If you are interested I will send a link.

    2. You have to be a citizen to participate. No one important really cares what a foreigner has to say.l

  9. haha – love this.

    “Trump’s masterful move shocks the swamp who have never witnessed a President who is beholden to no one other than the American people.”

    More popcorn please. Watch and learn, people.

      1. Yes, of course. Amazing that people are so willing, eager, desperate even, to be conned by this man.

        1. The preceding comments approved and required by the DNC and others who have rejected their citizenship in favor of a foriegn ideology. Which makes the whole roboclonettte group both undocumented and stateless.

        2. Amazing that people are so willing, eager, desperate even, to be conned by this man.

          Please explain for those you are amazed by what precisely is the con President Trump has done by his DACA announcement.

        3. Why do you waste your time with this whining. That is all it is. Put forth an argument–but we know that is actually the problem with you lot, you’re all on your back feet now, your hollow shells have collapsed. Trump may not be great, or even good, but he’s something, which is more than any of you can claim.

          Once again, an argument, please.

      2. As I said ho one important really cares what a foreigner has to say about our system of government.

        1. “Loaded with trans fats and made in China with GMO corn.”

          Last thing I heard was that Russia doesn’t allow GMO foods, there is always that location for you. Ask the Russian under your bed.

        1. You forgot clicking the heels the straight arms salute and the required “Jawhohl Mein Comrade We serve the party!” But what’s that got to do with the Representative Constitutional Republic all of you rejected in favor of a foreign ideology?

  10. It’s another indication, in case we needed one, that Democrats have no principles, merely improvisations they invoke to try to grab what they want.

    The core problem our political society faces is that half the population is negligent and sentimental and casts ballots for what is a criminal organization. That, conjoined to the incompetence of the political class generally, does not bode well for the future.

        1. ‪False tax cut sedition only 1% people rich linking cartel @gop @DNC who designed @POTUS & own judges conceal impunity then killer power independence, it’a clearly monsters sedition cartel GOP DNC linking elite conservative and liberal them violating us constitution to destroyed USA republic 50 sovereign states One Country One Nation We in us constitution trust, We together build the nation.

    1. Maybe the dems will make a deal with Trump. Give him the wall in exchange for a compromise on immigration and DACA.

      1. “Maybe the dems will make a deal with Trump. Give him the wall in exchange for a compromise on immigration and DACA.”

        Maybe, but once again a really bad idea. Trump should consider that to be out of his hands since he sent it congress. If he goes back on that, THEN, you’ll finally have a substantial statement to argue about.

  11. DACA stands for “Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals,” the operative word being DEFERRED. My understanding is that the deferral period was two years. Thus, those registering for the program could expect that Immigration wouldn’t come after them for two years, during which time they could make efforts to regularize their status. Nobody was ever guaranteed that the program would last forever, nor that Obama would stay president forever. And BTW, the program was not limited to “young children.” Anyone who entered the U.S. illegally through the age of 16 was eligible for deferred action, and anyone through the age of 26 could apply; i.e., someone who entered the U.S. illegally at age 16 and was now 26.

  12. Mr. Turley,

    You should probably add that unless Congress appropriates the money to send these DACA member back home, they will most likely remain. Without appropriations, Trump would be in violation of the Anti-deficiency Act, a felony.

    1. ‪@POTUS rescind DACA sedition qualifying from unconstitutional is another treason same executive order impostor Imam @BarackObama free of charge ‬And exacerbation violence in street

        1. Yeah, but what about you? Surely you don’t think we all are on board with your Star Trek utopia? Maybe try a stronger coffee in the AM and look at the world around you.

      1. Many who grew up here speak only English and don’t know anyone in any other country. So we should ethnically cleanse them over the border, I suppose, regardless of what hardships or dangers they might have to face.

          1. So should we just ethnically cleanse them over the border, regardless of what hardships or dangers they might have to face?

            1. “So should we just ethnically cleanse them over the border, regardless of what hardships or dangers they might have to face?”

              Thanks for illustrating my previous points. Your “Johnny-come-lately” desires for a certain outcome should require us to set the law aside. Wow, that was sadly easy.

              1. If we throw thousands or hundreds of thousands of them over the border, and substantial numbers of them are subsequently robbed, raped, murdered, starved etc. — what should we say? “Well, too bad.”? How would THAT play on the nightly news?

                1. So now we should govern by the nightly news? Speaking of the news, how have they been reporting the robberies, rapes, murders and starvation currently happening south of the border? Exactly. They couldn’t give a rats a$$ about current events there. But should anyone illegally in the United States be deported, then their lack of security for their own citizens is now our fault. Got it.

    2. I don’t think so…..Years ago California (under Republican Governor Pete Wilson) sued the federal govt because the Feds forced CA taxpayers to provide free medical care, education and other social benefits to illegals, but did not provide any financial assistance for those staggering billions of dollars. The federal court said ‘tough luck,” and that there was nothing illegal about “unfunded federal mandates” and that CA would have to find the money on its own. Which it did, by slashing the state education budget, resulting in the CA public school system going from #1 in the country to among the lowest ranked.

  13. Did anyone read Professor Turley’s article? President Trump sent it back to Congress where it should be.

    Did everyone understand what the Professor explained here? And why is the Professor’s lecture (video) on this subject not shown (taught) in every school in this country!

    I will tell you why…because there is a concerted effort, a conspiracy if you will, to dismantle Our Republic, and make it into a global-one world parliament.

    https://youtu.be/zdMbmdFOvTs

    1. Don’t read em too much anymore now that he quit being a lib. Does J t now agree with T rump on climate change? The oceans are hot and the fires are smelly. I am not in a hurrican path but I smell the smoke.

      1. “Does J t now agree with T rump on climate change?”

        There’s real science review that raises many serious contentions to the whole climate change debate. Including many from the ’73 Nobel prize winner for physics, I believe. Change the titles, but you religious types are all the same.

        You’re a useless troll.

  14. What is the NYAG is asking the courts to do? Declare Trump’s actions unconstitutional. So, if a president refuses to sign a piece of legislation because s/he believes it to be unconstitutional, someone can go to the courts to force the president to sign the legislation. Has anyone thought this one through?

    1. Siomeone doesn’t go the courts and force a signature. If he vetos then the Congress can over ride and it becomes law. Did you ever read the Constitution? What a novel idea

      1. You seem to understand my point, yet you don’t. Or, maybe, you just don’t get the joke. Let me try it this way.

        The NYAG appears to be asking the courts to nullify a nullification. Trump is nullifying what Obama did because he thinks (or should think) that the executive order is unconstitutional. For the purposes of this discussion, that is not a whole lot different than a president refusing to sign legislation because he thinks the law is unconstitutional. Therefore, what the NYAG is asking the court to do is similar to asking the court to force a president to sign a bill that the president otherwise would not sign. The NYAG is attempting to use a Constitution of limited powers to prevent exercise of the limitations. This is silly. It is, by analogy, also silly to go to court to force a president to sign legislation. I apologize if the analogy did not stick.

        I was not endorsing the NYAG’s position; nor was I suggesting that forcing a president to sign legislation was authorized under the Constitution. To the contrary, I was making completely the opposite point while merely pointing out the illogic of the NYAG’s position as I understand it. I apologize if my point was too subtle.

        1. Vince Jankoski – since there is a 6 month waiting period, my guess would be that the court would not find the cause ripe.

  15. Enigmainblackcom, I’ve said this before and I will say it again. We no longer have 3 legs of government(executive, legislative and judicial). Now we just have 2 legs of government, the democats and the republicans.

    1. and it’s called the one party system featuring the Government Party according to the left.

    1. “Executive orders are valid”

      Maybe, but they need to be stopped immediately, if not sooner. We need to take away magic fairy’s ability to circumvent the process of government to wave in new abominations. Sorry to disappoint you, but our government wasn’t initially designed for instant gratification that you desire. Principled and disciplined men created this (save your personal attacks on them to devalue their contribution, I know they are coming… here, I’ll do that for you, “they were not principled and disciplined men, they were nazi’s the original nazis… and even pinched babies!). I must be so easy for you guys who know everything and are never proven wrong.

      I would vote for someone who would offer to write an executive order ending executives, then resign.

    2. Only as they apply to the Executive Branch, At least it used to be that way before Congress gave us the Fourth Branch of Government. But they may NOT violate the Constitution. Ever hear of it? Of course not what need would you have of such a document?

  16. ” I still view DACA as a flagrantly legislative act by President Barack Obama carried out through his unilateral executive authority.”

    And what, pray tell is Trump’s dismantling of it but exactly the same thing–a flagrantly legislative act? You make it sound as if presidents didn’t really have unilateral executive authority. They have it’s . They use it. It’s part of the rules of presiding. A president doesn’t have to wait for the legislature to prepare a bill and pass it. But when a president makes an executive decision, Congress can overrule it. All they have to o is pass a veto proof bill, which is within it’s Constitutional powers. That’s how it was designed to work. A president’s executive decision is Constitutional. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it broke the rules, it’s perfectly within the rules of presidential power. It’s not a “flagrantly legislative act..” It is a perfectly valid act allowed by the Constitution and by precedence. If someone doesn’t like it, he can try to pass a Constitutional amendment outlawing it. Your prejudices are showing.

    1. “And what, pray tell is Trump’s dismantling of it but exactly the same thing–a flagrantly legislative act?”
      *************************
      So putting out the fire of the arsonist is the same as arson? Interesting logic, Louise.

      1. “Interesting logic, Louise.”

        Not really the words I had for that. How about “the chickens come home to roost.” We discussed Obama’s magic wand, waving in these grand visions. We should have hanged the first Pres who used the executive order to by a birthday cake. Talk about a slippery slope! We also warned the clueless that it would set a dangerous precedent and continue–surely the next President would do something by executive order they would not agree with–and back to the buts–
        but… but… but…. . But I guess this is just another perfect example of the base situational ethics model that underscores the tragedy of the progressive left. These people are not humbled by anything, assume they have all the facts in hand, and as such, resistance, criticism, and time-proven examples are not allowed. These people ASSUMED this cause was right (with some back-slapping) and their own–so, their need GIVES THEM THE RIGHT. Laws are merely inconveniences. We see it time and time again with this lot. It’s the ongoing tragedy that is dismantling the country.

              1. Maybe Allan is not as dumb as he appears. Nah, he is and I think ignorant would be a better descriptor.

              2. Mespo, Quite the opposite. Where did I say you were ” inane “? You aren’t and in fact I consider you pretty smart and savvy when it comes to the law.. If you can find where that errant message is let me know.. Maybe the WordPress program placed that comment in the wrong slot. I have noted that happening along with postings obtained in my email that never made it to the blog.

                  1. Mespo I did post under Alan for a day until my account was straightened out and I have seen no other allan’s on any of the threads I have been on. What I have noted is that sometimes a reply gets misplaced so that could have happened unless you are reading it from your emails which frequently wrongly attribute the “reply to” as the wrong person. I check on the blog itself if I see a strange “reply to”.

                    I have greatly appreciated all your comments.

                    Allan

                    1. mespo – just getting hit in the head by the pitcher can cause you to misremember, even if it was one season.

                    2. Speaking of getting hit in the head, I see Devos just brushed back the feminist Maoist crowd by junking those DOE rules for sexual assault investigations on campus. What will the ideologues do now in a real hearing in the merits? Cry?

                    3. Mespo, found it at: https://jonathanturley.org/2017/09/04/exoneration-first-investigation-later-comey-under-fire-over-draft-clearing-clinton-written-before-interviewing-key-witnesses/

                      You liikely saw it in your email “reply to” because the email sometimes says reply to the person above the person to who the reply was being sent. Mark had responded to you and I responded to mark, This error in the Wordsmith program is not civil.

                      “Mark, sounds like you have had one too many Bloody Mary’s and now we all have to suffer through your inane comments “

    2. And I might add, executive orders were meant to be used for emergencies only, not running the government on a whim or because some don’t like what they see.. The legislative process has to be upheld or we are no longer a free country, run by those who are supposed to be in office to keep a balance. We need to teach accurate history in our schools again. Unfortunately it has been so rewritten that even some of the younger teachers don’t even know what it was and is.

        1. 7:31 “I want congress to handle it! You take care of the issue because that’s your job. What the F*!k else are you here for? You’re the ones that are supposed to make it into a bill for me to pass or veto.”

  17. The Democrat party is no longer the party of our grandparents or for that matter our parents. It has total disregard of the Constitution and refer to it ONLY when it suits their end. So the question is who and what has it evolved into or taken over by?

        1. Hard working perhaps, law abiding… not so much. The Democratic Party of your grandparents, particularly in the South, had little respect for the law except as a tool to carry out their agenda.

          1. They still have little respect for the law aka Constitution only on steroids. That’s what this topic is about.

              1. enigma – although I would agree neither party seems eager to follow the Constitution, the Democrats seems to want to tear it to shreds.

                1. I would say they openly and voluntarily rejected it which means have no social contract with this country and it’s system of government. Leaves them by personal choice as stateless and undocumented more worthy of ejecting than any other group I can think of offhand.

                  1. I didn’t want to step in but you are correct. “It’s when they can have the power to impose their will on the rest of us it’s abused most.” That also applies to the black vote that the Democrats feel is guaranteed to them. Some black leaders have sold the black community a bill of goods and I believe that unified democratic vote has hurt much of the community.

                    1. I’m going to attempt to engage in conversation with you until you revert back to your old self. That there are black politicians who have shown more interest in their own personal gain than the community they represent is a given. It makes them kinda like… most politicians. The Democratic Party often takes the black vote for granted. You might ask, “Why is there not a wholesale rush to become Republicans?”
                      Republican policy makes it almost impossible to get a significant percentage of black votes. They have a coordinated strategy to suppress black votes. Telling me it’s not true is hardly convincing when I can read the laws for myself and multiple Federal appeals courts have said that is exactly their intent. A nameless party here demanded I show her the laws that do what I said. I did, and she hasn’t responded. While I’m anything but a single issue voter, I can never support a Party that denies black votes, period. Their tax policy benefits almost exclusively the rich and trickle down has proven laughable. I could make a list but there’s no point because voter suppression will always be enough for me. It’s comprehensive and has been coordinated by the RNC (Google Reince Priebus, voter suppression) and exists everywhere Republicans have power. I would be willing to consider options if there really was one. And in response to Donald Trump’s question, “What the hell do you have to lose?” We’re already finding out. The Justice Department is bringing back mass incarceration to new levels, the Justice Department has reversed course in protecting against voter suppression and has unleashed police departments who had to be at least concerned with Federal supervision. Pruitt’s EPA will make sure there’s more Flint’s and while rolling back Medicaid expansion would affect far more white people than black. The effect is disproportionate.
                      So while blanket support of the Democrat Party has its drawbacks. They pale compared to what the Republicns offer.

                    2. enigma,
                      I’m registered Independent. That being said, I believe both parties will forever do anything and everything they can to influence the outcome of elections. Voter suppression, vote fraud, you name it, it’s all the same. Every eligible citizen should get registered to vote and every effort should be made to ensure their vote is not nullified by an ineligible vote.

                    3. “I’m going to attempt to engage in conversation with you until you revert back to your old self.”

                      Not a good way to start enigma. Your style is confrontational and we ran into trouble with your hyperbolic confrontational style of calling people racists without proof something that demeans the suffering of all people that have suffered racism and makes dialogue that much more difficult. Think of the problems when a woman accuses a man of rape when it isn’t true and how that affects other women that were raped.

                      If you note I tried to stay away from the type of dialogue you responded to in your first sentence. Bad, bad, bad. Now I will respond to the content.

                      Many of the areas where there is a high percentage of blacks, Democrats are very much in control and likely wouldn’t lose control if some of the black vote strayed. The Republicans are not trying to suppress black votes. There is no way they can do it, sucessfully. They are trying to suppress illegal voting that doesn’t do anyone any good.

                      What have these dense Democratic cities done for the black population? Look at history and how much better off based upon the times blacks were then than many blacks are today. Look at many of the black leaders that have screw-d their own people for their own benefit. Who gets a lot or possibly most of the perks that come from these leaders and their Democratic allies. Black kids from well off families.

                      I won’t deal with the other stuff you talk about because most of it really isn’t true or it pertains to both parties. Each time I have gone through your data I found so many holes that I find it impossible to trust. The only thing one can do is go one item at a time to force you to dig deeper than the sites that are whipping up hate.

                      One thing is true. The black block of voters for Democrats has cost the black population greatly. Just look at the big Democratic cities and look at what is happening. I am not saying they would be better off all voting for Republicans. I am saying that their vote should not be a given, but by it being a given some black leaders maintain their power and rake in the money.

                      You touched on healthcare. You might think adding more people to Medicaid helps the black population. It doesn’t because Medicaid takes care of the most needy and many of them are black. They are being displaced by the new population that has more money and a greater ability to manipulate the system.

      1. that’s right, Ken. Politics is the art of compromise.
        That said, expect more and more legal and illegal immigrants as each day goes by. The 1% and others that own stocks and/or businesses want to sell more diapers etc. They want the 99% to bear the cost burdens of
        the consequences. Therefore, Betsy de BOSS will push for more charter schools – and the end of public schools- with excuses such as “No more money for public schools – because we have to fight state sponsored terrorism on behalf of ISRAEL”.

        1. Sounds like you support the neighboring despots that kill their people, stone women, use children as martyrs. You sound like you are a person to avoid.

          1. You sound like you are a person to a1%1void.

            Unless you want to be bored blank listening to someone babbling “9/11wasaninsidejobfirecantmeltsteel”, yeah. The other guy will supplement that with babble about Jews staying home from work (which he will festoon with images of swastikas pasted over the face of Benjamin Netanyahu).

        1. Michael Aarethun – I think the deal with the Democrats puts Trump in a new light vis a vis the Republican Party. They were upstructing him, he went around them. I think they are going to be more cooperative after this, since they look like idiots.

          1. Yep! Exactly and so it was from the beginning in the primaries in this strange story but then..it played right into our hands!

Comments are closed.