For years, the mainstream media has been criticized for open political bias, including repeating false narratives and claims. There is little evidence that that will change despite falling revenues and audiences. That was evident this week as leading journalists continued to raise a dubious claim about the Trump Administration deporting children, including cancer patients.
The media has been promulgating a false claim that children as young as four are being deported. The Administration immediately stated that the decision rested with the mothers on whether they would take the children or leave them in the United States with family.
Many of the same figures accused of promulgating false stories quickly picked up the spin from the Washington Post.
On NBC’s Meet the Press, Kristen Welker pursued the narrative with Secretary of State Marco Rubio:
KRISTEN WELKER: Let’s talk now about some new reporting that came in overnight. I want just to go through it with you and for our audience. Three U.S. citizen children have been deported with their mothers. Now this is according to The Washington Post. The family’s lawyer says one of them is a 4-year-old with Stage 4 cancer, deported without medication or ability to contact doctors. The family’s lawyers are also saying their clients were denied communication with family and legal representatives before being deported, and it’s raising concerns about the issue of due process. That it’s being violated. So let me ask you, is everyone on U.S. soil, citizens and non-citizens, entitled to due process?
MARCO RUBIO: Yes, of course. But let me tell you, it looks- in immigration standing, the laws are very specific. If you are in the country unlawfully, you have no right to be here and you must be removed. That’s what the law says. Somehow over the last 20 years, we’ve completely lost this notion that somehow- or completely adopted this idea that yes, we have immigration laws but once you come into our country illegally it triggers all kinds of rights that can keep you here indefinitely. That’s why we were being flooded at the border, and we’ve ended that. And that’s why you don’t- you see a historically low number of people not just trying to cross our border, trying to cross the border into Panama, all the way down in the Darien Gap. I mean- i it’s been a huge help for those countries as well. On the headline- that’s a misleading headline. Okay? Three U.S. Citizens, ages 4, 7 and 2 were not deported. Their mothers who were illegally in this country were deported. The children went with their mothers. Those children are U.S. citizens- they can come back into the United States- there’s- their father or someone here who wants to assume them. But ultimately who was deported was the mother- their mothers who were here illegally. The children just went with their mothers. But it wasn’t like- you guys make it sound like ICA agents kicked down the door and grabbed the 2 year-old and threw them on an airplane. That’s misleading. That’s just not true.
That would ordinarily leave a journalist looking at their shoes in embarrassment, but Welker decided to double down and add the claim that children are being denied “due process”:
WELKER: Just to be clear, because I do want to get to the overhaul at the State Department. Is it the U.S. policy to deport children, even U.S. citizens, with their families- and I hear what you’re saying- without due process? Just to be very clear there.
RUBIO: Well- no, no, no. No, no. Again, if someone is in this country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. If that person is with a 2-year-old child or has a 2-year-old child and says “I want to take my child with you- with me,” well then you have two choices. You can say yes, of course, you can take your child whether they’re a citizen or not because it’s your child or you can say yes, you can go, but your child must stay behind. And then your headlines would read, “U.S. holding hostage 2-year old, 4-year-old, 7-year-old, while mother deported.”
There is a great deal of litigation working through the courts on the level of due process required for deportations. The public overwhelmingly supports the deportation of unlawful immigrants and elected Trump based on his pledge to carry out such deportations. Unlawful immigrants often spend years in this country despite orders of deportation or removal. The level of review depends on their status. If they have previously entered unlawfully, they are subject to expedited removal.
The critical point, however, is that the children were the ones being deported. If they were born in this country, they are still treated as U.S. citizens (though the Administration is challenging birthright citizenship in the courts). Having a child in the United States does not make parents immune from removal or afford them special legal status over other deportees.
Over at CBS, Margaret Brennan (who was criticized for her “fact checks” in the presidential debate) also jumped on the narrative in interviewing Border Czar Tom Homan on Face the Nation:
MARGARET BRENNAN: On Friday, there were three American citizen children, born here, who were deported along with their mothers from Louisiana down to Honduras. And according to advocates, one of them is a 4-year-old child with Stage Four cancer. A rare form of metastatic cancer who was sent back to Honduras without getting to talk to a doctor and without medication. I understand this child’s mother entered this country illegally. But isn’t there some basis for compassionate consideration here that should have allowed for more consultation or treatment?
TOM HOMAN: Well, it certainly is discretionary. I’m not aware of this specific case. But no U.S. citizen child was deported. Deported means you gotta be ordered — reported by the immigration judge. We don’t deport U.S. citizens.
BRENNAN: The mother was deported along with the children.
HOMAN: These children- Children aren’t deported. The mother chose to take the children with her. When you enter the country illegally and you know you are here illegally and you choose to have a U.S. citizen child, that’s on you. That’s not on this administration. If you choose to put your family in that position, that’s on them. But having a U.S. citizen child, after you enter this country illegally, is not a “get out of jail free” card. It doesn’t make you immune from our laws. If that’s the message we send to the entire world, women are going to keep putting themselves at risk and come to this country. We send a message: you can enter the country illegally, that’s okay, you can have due process at great taxpayer expense, get ordered to move, that’s OK. Don’t leave, but have a U.S. citizen child and you are immune from removal? That’s not the way it works.
BRENNAN: So you don’t think there should be compassionate consideration for a 4-year-old child undergoing treatment for cancer?
HOMAN: I didn’t say that. I said ICE officers do have discretion-
BRENNAN: That was the question.
HOMAN: ICE officers do have discretion. I’m not familiar with the specific case. I don’t know what facts surround this case. I was just made aware of this when you mentioned it this morning. I was not aware of that case.
Brennan correctly noted that a court recently found a lack of due process in a child’s case. However, Holman had a reasonable response in citing the mother’s election in this one case to leave with her child.
BRENNAN: On Friday, a federal judge who was appointed by President Trump said a 2-year-old American citizen child had been sent to Honduras with the mother. But the judge said, quote: “there was no meaningful process.” So again, this is another similar situation and dynamic. Shouldn’t there be special care when the deportation cases involve small American-born children?
HOMAN: First of all, I disagree with the judge. There was due process. That female had due process at great taxpayer expense and was ordered by an immigration judge after those hearings. So she had due process. Again, this is Parenting 101. And you can decide to take that child with you or you can decide to leave the child here with a relative or another spouse. Having a child doesn’t make you immune from our laws of the country. American families get separated every day by law enforcement- thousands of times a day. When a parent gets put in jail, the child can’t go with them. If you are an illegal alien and you come to this country and you decide to have a U.S. citizen child, that’s on you. You put yourself in that position.
BRENNAN: Well, when it came to this particular case, you just pointed out that they could have made arrangements. The father tried, actually, to make arrangements as we understand it through our reporting. But he and the mother who were separated, since she was in detention after showing up for her appointment, was only allowed a very brief phone call. The father tried to petition to get the child handed over to an American citizen relative. So the mother had to make this decision and took the child with her. It just seems like there could be some more time frame here around due process allowed. That’s what the judge is saying, is saying- there should have been more of a process here.
HOMAN: There was due process. The 2-year-old baby- the two year old baby was left with the mother because the mother signed a document requesting her 2-year-old baby go with her. That’s the parent’s decision. I don’t think the judge knows the specifics of this case. The 2-year-old went with the mom. The mom signed a paper saying, “I want my 2-year-old to go with me.” That’s a parent’s decision. It’s not a government decision, it’s a parent’s decision.
BRENNAN: The father wrote a note. Anyhow, we have to leave it there, Director. Thank you for your time today. We’ll be right back.
It is important to note that these are two very different cases that were blended into the coverage. In the second case, the government insists that there was no prior arrangement for the child to be left with the family and that the mother made this decision.
ICE should endeavor to accommodate such requests and there should always be an inquiry into allegations that these women were prevented from making arrangements for their children to remain in the country. However, there will also be practical limits in addressing those issues in the midst of a removal.
If Holman is correct, the mother was in the system long before the actual removal. The father “sending a note” at the end of that process is worth looking into, but it is hardly surprising that the removal proceeded with the mother’s consent.
The same narrative was playing over at ABC as Martha Raddatz had this exchange with former DoJ spokesperson Sarah Isgur:
MARTHA RADDATZ: Sarah, I want to turn here to some information that has been in The Washington Post about deportations of very young children who are American citizens. A 2-year-old, a 4-year-old, a 7-year-old sent back to Honduras. Is that legal?
SARAH ISGUR: This is something our immigration system deals with nearly every day. U.S. citizen children have to make that decision with their parents of whether they’re going to stay. The parent has the decision. We do not allow illegal alien parents to stay just because they have custody over U.S. citizen children, and at least one of these cases with the 2-year-old, the mother was the one who made the decision to take her daughter with her. The father is the one saying he wanted the daughter to stay here. Often times, it’s going to look more like a custody dispute than an immigration question.
Again, as Isgur correctly points out, this is the election of the parents who are being removed.
Critics have pushed back on these interviews, noting how the media seemed only marginally interested in thousands of children lost in the system under the Biden Administration as millions poured over the border. Thousands of unaccompanied children were pushed over the border and then lost by the government, according to the Trump Administration. Many may have ended up with sex traffickers or criminal gangs.
The coverage suggested that children were being thrown on planes to be dumped in some foreign land.
The Washington Post, which is cited for the story, has been repeatedly accused of pushing misleading or false narratives. There was a recent riot in the newsroom when owner Jeff Bezos demanded that the newspaper return to more balanced coverage.
The most telling condemnation came from Post columnist Philip Bump, who wrote “what the actual f**k.” Bump has been repeatedly accused of false claims and previously had a meltdown in an interview when confronted about past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by stating that it stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.
We have previously discussed the sharp change in culture at the Post, which became an outlet that pushed anti-free speech views and embraced advocacy journalism. The result was that many moderates and conservatives stopped reading the newspaper.
In my book on free speech, I discuss at length how the Post and the mainstream media have joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. I once regularly wrote for the Post and personally witnessed the sharp change in editorial priorities as editors delayed or killed columns with conservative or moderate viewpoints.
Last year, that culture was vividly on display when the newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.”
The baby hoax shows that little has (or likely will) change. In the meantime, the public is moving on. New media is rising as mainstream media audiences shrink. Journalists and columnists are increasingly writing for each other as polling shows trust in the media is at an all-time low.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
It simply does not matter. The media continues to vigorously saw on the branch upon which it is sitting.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Clouds for days! This vape mod hits hard and smooth.
I used to care about these children situations but then Biden became president and now I want them all gone. I don’t care if the children citizens miss out on being raised here.
The schools teacher will try to have me killed again. But now the nsa will be watching them! as they move their hit men from Nashville to memphis! The new is watching! Dru gets heat! Ultimately can’t win. Yet the board stands by its home wrecking teacher..gold digger? Why??
What are decent people suppose to do? We want Maga to seal the borxder…..but so many are already in and fair housing prevents asking. Asking gives a case. So land lords are really pinched. but calpers isn’t worried. Just mom and pops. The reason due process matters is that it matters. N MS 13 hanging out cal pers….who abetting. Whilst MS 13 gaming out mom and pop – they will go along to remain alive. Stone next door had the contract. Workers put up 2×4 one three. That job sight had drone drops for a month. Their ops are huge. And we play stupid! It is a fact any govt “contractor” hired MS 13. Alabama prison went 50 billion over to whom? Ppl need to leave Alabama : they fixing you in the jail. Elmore just added 150 for getting adrested. Leave people before they start to try to fill the pen. Leave vets leave!
Stories about babies are such a draw. Irrelevant whether they’re true.
Jonathan
Your stance against rage rhetoric rings hollow, when you allow Dennis McInliar to perpetuate it here day in and day out.
Today he suggested that Trump is Hitler simply because he had the audacity to be born on the same day of the year that the US Army was established.
And of course we all know from the polls what this dog whistle means.
55% of democrats are whack jobs like Dennis, who feel that assassinating Trump would be at least “somewhat justified”.
GO AWAY!
EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY AND DECORUM POLICY BY PREVARICATION AND INSOLENT IMPERTINENCE!
BAN FOR LIFE!
VVVVVVVVVV
Jonathan: Now that your “free speech” guru has left the position of co-President of the United States the Q is what did Elon actually accomplish during his time in the WH? He didn’t save a lot of money. In fact, federal spending went up during the first quarter. But Musk did accomplish something significant that has largely gone under the radar. His DOGE teen tech pros were able to bore into the data bases of a number of government agencies (SS, IRS, etc.) and download a huge amount of private information on all Americans–stuff we thought was being kept private and protected by all those agencies we depend upon. Privacy groups say DOGE’s data hacks have one purpose. To set up a centralized data basis for all the info they gained access to over the last 100 days so it could be used to go after Musk and DJT’s enemies or potential enemies.
Example: Adam Pena is a US citizen and immigration attorney in California. His family has been in the US for over a century. On April 10 Pena received an email from DHS informing him his “parole” was ending and he had 7 days to leave the country. Pena was obviously shocked by the email: “I am a US-born citizen. I was never paroled, admitted or came into the country with some valid immigration document”.
So why might be the reason Pena received the threatening email? Pena and his firm represent undocumented immigrants seeking asylum or other protected status. Other immigration attorneys Pena knows have received similar emails. Pena thinks the emails are a form of intimidation. Pena says, “I feel also this was sent as a form of intimidation and scare tactics, really to immigration advocates around the country, obviously I’m not the only one”. Fortunately, Pena and the other immigration attorneys are not so easily intimidated by DHS from representing immigrants.
Adam Pena is speaking out against the DJT regime’s intimidation. That’s a good thing. Because to paraphrase Rev. Martin Niemoller in 1937: First, they came for the immigrants and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an immigrant. Then they came after the immigration attorneys and because I wasn’t an immigration attorney I didn’t speak up. Then they came for the immigration judges but because I wasn’t an immigration judge I didn’t speak up. Then they came for me but by that time there was no one left to speak for me”.
Dennis, George, and Gigi are the poster children on the frontcovers of textbooks called: “Lessons in Behavior Modification.”
The more you ignore them or politely correct them, the more combative and argumentative they become.
“Asylum” is a grand fraud perpetrated by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs).
Perhaps one or a hundred or a thousand people are truly being persecuted and are in need of “Asylum.”
Not 20 million.
AMERICA—THE NATION, THE LAW, THE PEOPLE
The never legally abrogated immigration law of the American Founders:
______________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1803 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
This gives a timeline and those laws were repealed or allowed to expire and replaced.
https://theancestorhunt.com/blog/u-s-naturalization-laws-from-1790-1952/
Meds not arrive on time this week, Dennis?
Hahahaha….cool story, bruh…tell us another one.
#. Hope all is well, Professor Turley. No new post today 🤔
Turley again attacks WAPO’s allegedly toxic free speech environment but never explains why Krauthammer (may he rest in peace) and Will had no problems with same. Sounds more like a man with a personal grudge who just can’t let it go
Because it wasn’t the same for Charles or George. As the professor just laid out, the environment has grown much more toxic.
GO AWAY!
EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY AND DECORUM POLICY BY PREVARICATION AND INSOLENT IMPERTINENCE!
BAN FOR LIFE!
^^^ THIS TO DENNIS! ^^^
The judicial branch must strike down the funding of PBS and NPR by Congress.
The judicial branch cannot order President Trump to fund PBS and NPR.
Congress has the power to tax for only debt, defense, and “general welfare”—basic infrastructure that facilitates “all well proceed.”
The judicial branch must implement the manifest tenor of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, enumerates no power of Congress to tax for PBS and NPR.
Just wait for a district judge to do just that. It’ll be another sprinkle of hilarity on the devastation of trust in the courts
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
If, in a rare moment of clarity, the Supreme Court could act retroactively by 50 years and overturn Roe v. Wade, it can also act retroactively by 150 years and overturn “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s entire “Reign of Terror,” up to and including all of its effects and the improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx, understanding and finding that secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and is, therefore, fully constitutional, even clearly stated in the constitutional ratification statements of various states.
Yes yes, we’ve seen your copypaste many times. got any new bits?
The question is, “Does John Roberts?”
Here’s a thought. Someone should send John Roberts a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
The states which left the union did only what our Founders did when they broke away from GB. The Founders were lauded and praised for what they did, but the Confederate states were condemned and called traitors and treasonous.
Irrelevant. Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and is, therefore, fully constitutional. Everything Lincoln did was a criminal act and must be rescinded and corrected, beginning with the abrogation of the “Reconstruction Amendments” conceived by Karl Marx.
Did you think I was disagreeing with you? I was pointing out that the colonies and the Confederate states did pretty much the same thing. The results were quite different, though.
Aren’t we forced to consider that the circumstances and goals behind each were different? Rebellions may happen often, but not all carry the same meaning or consequence. The American Revolution was a fight for self-governance and freedom from a distant monarchy, while the Civil War was rooted in a struggle over slavery and the future of the Union. Grouping them as just ‘rebellions’ might miss some important distinctions.
No. It wasn’t just slavery, there were economic factors as well. The states were not in rebellion. They weren’t trying to overthrow the federal government. They just wanted out. That’s what they did. States wrote their own ‘declarations’ of why they were separating from the union. And then they did. South Carolina seceded 12/20/1860, other states joined them. On 2/4 (my daughter’s birthday)/1861, they established the Confederate States of America.
A delegation went to DC and demanded the surrender of all federal military installations that were now in a foreign country–theirs. Buchanan said no. Union troops and supplies were sent to the 3 federal forts there.
After Lincoln was inaugurated things escalated. (this is the condensed version) Ultimately, with the union troops refusing to leave the Fort, the Confederates took it.
The Confederate states wanted freedom, too. To live their lives the way they wanted to live. The southern states had established their country before the Sumter battle.
There absolutely nothing in the Constitution preventing a state from leaving the union.
Lincoln did tremendous damage to our federal Constitutional Republic…and here we are.
My point, was that the south didn’t invade the north, they weren’t attacking the north. AND there’s nothing in the Constitution preventing a state from leaving the Union.
In Texas v White (1869), the Supreme Court held that States do not have a constitutional right to secede.
First, I would like to remind everyone who is reading this of Jefferson’s words in the DoI: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Second, it’s not a Constitutional Right, it’s a natural right.
Third, I direct your attention to the Tenth Amendment — the Constitution neither delegates authority to the feds to prevent a state from leaving nor does the Constitution prohibit a state from leaving the union.
Fourth, the Constitution is a compact between the states, the states are the parties. The federal government is the product of that compact. The parties of the compact have the final say, the product can only act according to the terms of the compact.
Fifth, NY, RI, and VA ALL included in their ratification documents a form of this: that they declared and made known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
I think that’s enough…do you think that’s enough….yeah…that’s enough for now.
Oh, if all y’all have any kind of silly notion that my purpose in posting this is anything other than supporting the correct understanding of the Constitution and state powers….all y’all are out of your minds.
“The Confederate states wanted freedom, too.”
There is no such thing as the “freedom” to enslave others.
Sam, you are absolutely correct. My section of town agrees that we don’t want our freedom encumbered by the city we live in, so we took over the police substation and declared ourselves free of the city’s tyranny, calling ourselves CHOP (Coalition of Holy Omnipotent Persons).
An absurd and false comparison. Based on the comments of yours that I have read, I expected better from you.
Lgbmiel, my comment was pure sarcasm and was not meant to reflect on the character of the Confederacy. I don’t know how you took it, but including CHOP, something I abhorred in Seattle, Washington, demonstrates my view of breaking a covenant that secures our existence.
If you think the comparison was off the mark, why?
Freedom from the north’s and federal government’s unfair practices.
The justifications behind wars are often multifaceted, but at its core, the Civil War was about slavery. Still, slavery doesn’t stand alone. The South was economically dependent on slavery, which, in the long run, didn’t benefit them. This dependence evolved into a hostile dynamic between the North and the South, giving rise to the issue of states’ rights versus federal authority.
Significantly, the rationales above are intertwined with many alternative causes of the war and themselves. We need to recognize the economic and political motivations linked to these reasons. Politically, the South was losing influence for many reasons, but the repeal of the Missouri Compromise by the Kansas-Nebraska Act played a critical role. The political acts culminated in the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was elected without a single electoral vote from the South.
You can call the rebellion whatever you wish and make insufficient constitutional claims if one is willing to ignore reality and that all the states threw out the Articles of Confederation over the question of states’ rights.
I call it secession — withdrawing from the compact the states had chosen to join. This Country was created through an act of secession.
Say…whatever happened to those Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union??? State after state and state left – seceded – from a compact the states had ratified as being PERPETUAL
How could that be?
When 9 states had ratified the new Constitution, four states were still under the Articles. Heck, RI didn’t even send delegates to the convention, RI didn’t sign the Constitution.
Insufficient Constitutional claims??? The Tenth Amendment isn’t sufficient? The Constitution not having any delegated power to prevent a state from leaving and the Constitution not prohibiting a state leaving isn’t sufficient?
Three states stipulating in their ratification documents that they would take back the powers they delegated to the federal government if/when it became necessary for their happiness; when the Constitution shall be perverted to their injury or oppression….that’s not sufficient?
Lgbmiel, here are some thoughts.
You may call rebellion by whatever name you choose. You are even free to coin your own word, but your use of that word doesn’t mean a rebellion isn’t a rebellion. The states didn’t secede from the Articles of Confederation; they agreed to create a new binding contract to hold the states together and survive.
The Constitution isn’t a treaty among sovereigns like the Articles of Confederation. It established a perpetual union, binding all into a single political body.
Your mention of the Tenth Amendment forgets, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…” That demonstrates all agreed to a lack of sovereignty and the inability to make an individual treaty, declare war, or print money. Those are fundamental powers of independent nations that put one on notice that they cannot withdraw from the agreement. Alternatively, you can view succession as granting the states the powers they are constitutionally denied.
Well, you’re wrong about the Constitution establishing a perpetual union. It does not. The Articles of Confederation did that. It’s in the name. Furthermore, under the Articles, there had to be unanimous consent to amendments, a law required nine votes to pass.
The Articles was not a treaty, it was the Country’s first Constitution and it established a confederation of states — the name…Articles of Confederation is a pretty clue. It had a weak central government with the power to make treaties and alliances, maintain armed forces and coin money.
A state ratifying the new Constitution absolutely was that state seceding from the Articles. Each state decided for itself what it would do. The new Constitution was not ratified en masse. It was ratified individually by each state. It did not go into effect until 9 states had ratified it. Until 9 states withdrew from the Articles and joined the new union. The remaining states were still under the Articles until they too made the decision to withdraw and ratify the new Constitution.
The Articles were not dissolved until the second to last state withdrew and joined the new union. That left RI standing alone and not part of any union. There can’t be a confederation of states when there’s only one state. Each state dissolved the bonds it had with the other states under the Articles and made new bonds with the other states under the new Constitution.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation… (chuckle) You’ve misunderstood. Article I Section 10, these are powers the states agreed to let the federal government use.
Tench Coxe: “I shall endeavour to exhibit clear and permanent marks and lines of separate sovereignty, which must ever distinguish and circumscribe each of the several states, and prevent their annihilation by the federal government, or any of its operations.”
Lgbmiel, the Articles of Confederation failed, forcing the States to adopt a more cohesive centralized system. The 13 eggs voluntarily, joined together and were scrambled. No one considered dividing the eggs into thirteen states to be eaten by the Europeans. The package worked, and parts separated by thousands of miles became integrated entirely.
Let me provide one small example. Andrew Jackson was born in the Carolinas and won the Battle of New Orleans. Sam Austin and Sam Houston were both born in Virginia and, with other Americans, founded and fought for Texas’ independence from Mexico. Support for weaponry, money, and indirect American government support was not incidental. Texas bordered the Mississippi River and port, and Mexico’s dominance in that area was considered an existential threat. The Ohio and Mississippi rivers, along with their feeders, grew America’s economy at an unprecedented rate, significantly affecting it. It was a natural rail system that integrated all of America together.
I addressed the Tenth earlier, and nothing has changed, but I will add that if the Constitution explicitly denies states the power to make treaties or alliances, core acts of sovereignty, then it certainly denies them the greater power to unilaterally secede. You don’t need to ban secession if you’ve already banned everything that would make secession meaningful.
Hamilton FP 28 — “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted … [by] … State governments [which] will … afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…”
Jefferson, the Kentucky Resolutions 1798: “…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…”
James Madison Notes on Nullification (1835) (p.573-607): “… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…”
Madison’s “Report of 1799-1800 on the Virginia Resolutions”: “The States, in their sovereign capacity, are the parties to the constitutional compact; and are thus the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution. There can be no tribunal above the authority of the States to decide whether the compact made by them has been violated by the federal government. “(p 192)
“That if, when the federal government usurps power, the States don’t stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding.” (p195)
“That the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, the Sovereign States have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches. “(p196)
“That all 3 Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of the States. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed.” (p196)
“So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact. Otherwise, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of the judicial branch with the other branches in usurping powers, would subvert the Constitution forever.” (p196)
Yes, you did mention the Tenth Amendment….Hamilton and Madison would like a word with you.
Madison FP 46: “the last resort against unconstitutional acts of the federal government – states must defend themselves from the federal government – that’s why the People are armed.”
Hamilton Federalist No. 32 (2nd para):“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not … EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…”
Federalist 62: “…the equal vote allowed to each State [each State gets two U.S. Senators] is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.” (Madison or Hamilton)
I have no idea what your ‘one small example’ was meant to show.
We don’t see the word secession anywhere in the quotes. You know why: Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton all supported a strong federal union. Nullification is a way of pushing back. Nullification was tried and failed. Jackson rejected it, and all three leaders you mentioned disowned the idea of secession.
Why don’t you use the word rebellion? All those you quoted did?
” have no idea what your ‘one small example’ was meant to show.”
It showed how integrated the nation was, which is a big reason that the fragmentation of the Union would be a disaster. Before advocating a policy, one needs to understand its consequences.
No, they didn’t. Secession is the ultimate nullification of the federal government’s unconstitutional acts, usurpation of power, and abuse of power. It is a natural right, the original right of self-defense — existing before there was a Constitution. I did a word search on the page and the only times rebellion was used was in your comments and once in mine.
“It showed how integrated the nation was, which is a big reason that the fragmentation of the Union would be a disaster. Before advocating a policy, one needs to understand its consequences.”
You can not be serious. That is beyond ridiculous. Who’s advocating & what policy?
“No, they didn’t. Secession is the ultimate nullification”
I respect where you’re coming from, and I think we agree on the danger of government overreach. But secession isn’t nullification. It’s a separate concept. When appropriate, nullification operates within the constitutional system; secession exits it entirely.
Yes, people have a natural right to resist tyranny; almost everyone accepts that. However, once we formed the Constitution, we agreed on a process for addressing grievances inside the system. The Constitution doesn’t permit secession. What you’re calling secession, unless both parties agree, is rebellion. You may call it a natural freedom, but it is not a constitutional right, which matters if we believe in the rule of law.
You’re missing the entire point about secession being a natural right. Of course the Constitution doesn’t mention it. It is power the states reserved. It’s outside the Constitution. Jefferson said exactly this in the DoI. When government becomes destructive to our Rights, it is the Right and duty of the People to alter or abolish it and create a new government. It’s not a Constitutional right because the Constitution doesn’t grant rights. It is a power the states reserved when they created the federal government. The Founders themselves were part of two secessive acts. They seceded from GB and they seceded from the Articles of Confederation.
“You’re missing the entire point about secession being a natural right.
Self-determination is a natural right, but from a legal point of view, natural rights do not override the Constitution. That is why it is rebellion when you talk about secession from the Union.
“. It is power the states reserved. ”
It is Swiss Cheese logic. Too many holes in the logical pathway.
” Jefferson said exactly this in the DoI.”
Yes, revolution or rebellion.
“They seceded from GB and they seceded from the Articles of Confederation.”
They rebelled against Great Britain, and the movement from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was not unilateral.
Dude, you’re ridiculous. Oh, yes, the People are absolutely above the Constitution. The Constitution is the creature
of the People. The Constitution doesn’t control the People, it controls government. The People are the source of sovereignty and power. The People are the ones who create government to secure our Rights. The People are the ones who can alter or abolish government. The People are above the Constitution and government. The government exists ONLY because the People allow it, the People consent. It is the natural, inherent, unalienable
Right of the People to alter or abolish government when THEY feel the government is not doing their job.
The colonies removed themselves from GB’s control. They declared themselves sovereign and independent states. Because that is the power the People have — government needs the consent of the People to exist. The People can withdraw that consent at ANY time. The People have the power, the Right, and the duty to alter or abolish ANY government which is abusive and destruction. The People have the power, the Right, and the duty to then create a NEW government.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The states did this with GB and then they did it again with the Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL union. The Articles, also, did not say a state could withdraw from the Articles. “And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual;” “And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.” But, they did it anyway. Because the People are above government and the compacts they create. They are creatures of both.
The states did secede from the Articles. Secede means leave, withdraw, abolish, dissolve the compact they created. The states dissolved their ties to the Articles to ratify the new constitution.
“It is Swiss Cheese logic. Too many holes in the logical pathway.” You say this because you know it’s true and you can’t refute it. Jefferson did not say revolution or rebellion in the DoI.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
“Dude, you’re ridiculous. Oh, yes, the People are…”
Your statement is filled with hyperbole and topped off with insult, despite my respectful attitude toward you. I understand your frustration and what you are driving at, but you went down the wrong road into chaos. However, lucky for you, you still have the independent ability to get up and walk out of the country and the Constitution.
“Right of the People to alter or abolish government when THEY feel the government is not doing their job.”
Yes, and Thomas Jefferson said so. That is known as revolution, not secession.
“The colonies removed themselves from GB’s control.”
Correct! And by rebellion, not a legal process. They didn’t claim it was authorized by British law, and they didn’t call it secession.
“The union shall be perpetual.”
Exactly. You quoted that from the Articles. The states left that system and replaced it with another. They didn’t pretend the Articles allowed withdrawal. Again: revolution, not secession.
“Each party has an equal right to judge for itself… the mode and measure of redress.” (Kentucky Resolutions)”
Even Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions were about nullification, not secession. He never claimed states had a constitutional right to leave the Union.
The rest of your comment goes off the rail, crashing and burning. The hyperbole only adds fuel to the fire.
Dude, does the Constitution list all the Rights of the People?
Does the Constitution list all state powers?
Again, Jefferson did not say in the DoI that the People exercising their highest power to abolish their government and create a new one was revolution or rebellion.
He said it was a NATURAL right, it doesn’t come from government or a written compact.
Secede: “To withdraw formally from membership in a state, union, or other political entity; to split from or to withdraw from membership of a political union, an alliance or an organisation; to become independent of a country or area of government.”
The colonies formally withdrew from GB with the DoI. They withdrew; they split from them; they became independent of them. They seceded.
You think the states dissolving the Articles was REVOLUTION?? Against who?? Themselves?? It was secession — they withdrew from the Articles; they split from the Articles; they became independent from them. It’s impossible for the states to revolt against themselves. The states dissolved the bands tying them to the Articles and ratified a new Constitution. That’s secession not revolution.
Jefferson Kentucky Resolutions: ” but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being
parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the General Government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes, punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution as cognizable by them:
I’m gonna repeat this because it seems to be a concept beyond your abilities to understand: “that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.”
Every state has a NATURAL RIGHT to nullify of their OWN authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Secession is the highest form of nullification by people exercising their highest authority to alter or abolish government.
Jefferson WOULDN’T have said that the states had a CONSTITUTIONAL Right to leave the union. Because it’s NOT a Constitutional Right, it’s a natural right not under control of the Constitution or the government. The power to leave the union is one of the powers the states retained.
Madison: A RIGHTFUL SECESSION requires the consent of the others, OR AN ABUSE OF THE COMPACT, ABSOLVING the SECEDING PARTY FROM the OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY IT.
Three states included in their ratification papers that they would reclaim all powers they delegated to the feds if the government became injurious or oppressive.
DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that
the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the
United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to
their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains
with them and at their will.”
NY ratification document:That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it
shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and
right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress
of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to
the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to
whom they may have granted the same;”
RI ratification document: “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever
it shall become necessary to their happiness.”
You’re proving my point. Natural rights like revolution exist outside the Constitution. Natural rights aren’t legal processes within it. Secession is not listed because it’s not a constitutional right. Jefferson called it a natural right, which is why it’s not in the document. The ratification quotes don’t override the final Constitution, which is not altered. Texas v. White settled this: unilateral secession is illegal.
A few corrections of the many to your comments are necessary.
“Again, Jefferson did not say in the DoI ”
No one but you tied Jefferson to the DOI.
—
“You think the states dissolving the Articles was REVOLUTION?? ”
No one said that.
—
“I’m gonna repeat this because it seems to be a concept beyond your abilities to understand:”
Another insult?
—
“that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify”
Nullify is not secession.
—
“Madison: A RIGHTFUL SECESSION requires the consent of the others”
When speaking in legal terms, Madison did not believe in secession.
Madison FP 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
James Wilson: “Every thing which is not given, is reserved.”
Edmund Randolph: “Every power not given it by this system is left with the states.”
Alexander Hamilton: “Whatever is not expressly given to the federal head, is reserved to the members.”
Coxe again:“The general government is fœderal, or an union of sovereignties, for special purposes.”
Jefferson –17 yrs after the other quote: “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, “Let us separate.” I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, & hold the former at arm’s length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations & war.” (Letter from Jefferson to William Crawford, June 20, 1816)
” And with respect to the transactions against the excise law, it appears to me that you are all swept away in the torrent of governmental opinions, or that we do not know what these transactions have been. We know of none which, according to the definitions of the law, have been anything more than riotous. There was indeed a meeting to consult about a separation. But to consult on a question does not amount to a determination of that question in the affirmative, still less to the acting on such a determination; but we shall see, I suppose, what the court lawyers, & courtly judges, & would-be ambassadors will make of it. The excise law is an infernal one. The first error was to admit it by the Constitution; the 2d., to act on that admission; the 3d & last will be, to make it the instrument of dismembering the Union, & setting us all afloat to choose which part of it we will adhere to. The information of our militia, returned from the Westward, is uniform, that though the people there let them pass quietly, they were objects of their laughter, not of their fear; that 1000 men could have cut off their whole force in a thousand places of the Alleganey; that their detestation of the excise law is universal, and has now associated to it a detestation of the government; & that separation which perhaps was a very distant & problematical event, is now near, & certain, & determined in the mind of every man.
I expected to have seen some justification of arming one part of the society against another; of declaring a civil war the moment before the meeting of that body which has the sole right of declaring war; of being so patient of the kicks & scoffs of our enemies, & rising at a feather against our friends; of adding a million to the public debt & deriding us with recommendations to pay it if we can &c., &c. But the part of the [president’s] speech which was to be taken as a justification of the armament, reminded me of parson Saunders’ demonstration why minus into minus make plus. After a parcel of shreds of stuff from Aesop’s fables, and Tom Thumb, he jumps all at once into his Ergo, minus multiplied into minus make plus. Just so the 15,000 men enter after the fables, in the speech.(Letter from Jefferson to James Madison, December 28, 1794)
“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” (Jefferson’s copy of the Kentucky Resolutions, Article 1, October 1798)
I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of it’s being a public blessing. I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burdens, & sink us under them.
I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; & little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe; entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty. I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another: for freedom of the press, & against all violations of the constitution to silence by force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” (Letter from Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry Philadelphia, Jan. 26, 1799)
The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, during the Philadelphia convention was proposed by the Connecticut delegates — Sherman and Ellsworth. “Some additional powers are vested in Congress, which was a principal object that the states had in view in appointing the Convention; those powers extend only to matters respecting the common interests of the Union and are specially defined, so that the particular STATES RETAIN their SOVEREIGNTY in all other matters,” Sherman and Ellsworth wrote.”
Luther Martin, Founding Father, Maryland AG, and Maryland delegate to the convention. He refused to sign the Constitution because he felt it gave the federal government too much power. “An adequate representation of States in a federal government, consists in each State having an equal voice, either in person or by its representative, in every thing which relates to the federal government. “in a federal government over States EQUALLY FREE, SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT, every State ought to have an equal share in making the federal laws or regulations, in deciding upon them, and in carrying them into execution” “At the convention he was in favor of “…letting a separation take place if [states] desired it.” He declared “I had rather there should be two Confederacies, than one founded on any other principle than an equality of votes.”
“Madison FP 45: “The powers delegated ….”
Where in all of that does it atually say there is a constitutional right to secession? You can bind those pages between two nice pieces of cardboard and call it a book, but a book isn’t a constitutional argument. And this one doesn’t prove secession is legal under the Constitution.
What aren’t you getting about it being a NATURAL right? What aren’t you getting about it being a power the states kept when the Founders created the Constitution? King George said the colonies also didn’t have the right to secede from GB, too. It’s a DoI power. The power of the people to alter or abolish government they feel is destructive, oppressive, tyrannical. It’s the people saying we are removing your power to govern us and we are creating a new government which will better serve us.
This comment is being repetitive. The response is in the other replies.
It is utter stupidity to expect the Constitution to sanction its own demise. Do you think the Constitution would include how the Constitution could be dissolved?
Beyond ridiculous and insane.
“It is utter stupidity to expect the Constitution to sanction its own demise. ”
The Constitution was created to be permanent. If the people rose in contempt, then, as Jefferson said, they could revolt.
Non-responsive. It’s utter lunacy to expect the Constitution to include a process by which states could withdraw from the compact which created the Constitution and the federal government.
The Constitution says what the federal government CAN do and what the states CAN’T do. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it’s a power retained by the states. Three states even put that in their Constitutional ratification documents.
You’re arguing that silence equals permission. That’s not how the law works. The Constitution doesn’t mention states declaring war, yet it’s clearly forbidden. Secession isn’t listed because it’s incompatible with a binding union. Three state ratifications don’t override the final document they ratified.
For some reason, there’s no ‘reply’ button under your comment about CHOP, so I’m putting it here.
My apologies, sarcasm isn’t always apparent in the written word.
It would be a more accurate comparison if the Confederacy sent troops to DC, set up an encampment, and tried to capture and occupy the WH or the Capitol. The Confederate states didn’t want to overthrow the federal government. They wanted to withdraw from the Union and create their own thang. They wrote formal declarations of independence from the US.
My objection and focus has always been on the Constitution.and Lincoln’s refusal to obey the Constitution by recognizing that states have the authority to leave.
Lgbmiel, I do not see your equivalence because it is evident the Constitution wasn’t created for one part to secede without mutual agreement. Just because that right wasn’t explicitly denied isn’t an argument.
Indeed, my earlier comment about CHOP was based on reality. Because of many circumstances, I want a portion of my city to secede from it and join another one. Most people think we are citizens of that other city, and even those living in that other city think we are as well.
The accepted rule of law is that both sides must agree, so I cannot call the other city my home.
Jefferson said the tenth is the foundation of the Constitution. So, if a power is not delegated to the feds by the Constitution and the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit a power to the states, it’s a power retained by the states. So, yeah, it is an argument.
And…if the Founders intended that a state couldn’t secede, they would have included that ban in the Constitution.
“So, yeah, it is an argument”
Yes, it is a commonly used argument, but also a bad one.
Jefferson disagreed with unilateral secession. However, some try to stretch his words but fail.
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. (Letter from Jefferson to John C. Breckenridge, August 12, 1803)
Lgbmiel, Jefferson’s letter is a philosophical musing, not a legal endorsement of secession. He never advocated unilateral withdrawal from the Union. You’re pulling Jefferson out of context to support a claim he didn’t make.
I hit send before I was finished. I put the rest in another comment.
“I hit send before I was finished. I put the rest in another comment.”
No response followed. I responded to two others.
It’s in another comment I already posted in a reply to a different question.
Yes. It would be very nice if our servants obeyed the terms of the compact we (states) created. Fund only what is enumerated in the Constitution; we keep only the depts/agencies enumerated in the Constitution. While we’re at it, we can restore the original balance of powers among the 3 branches, not allowing the judicial branch to claim sole & final arbiter on Constitutionality, again.
That would be fabulous!!
Jonathan: Headline from AP yesterday: “Army plans a potential parade on Trump’s birthday call for 6,600 soldiers”. A parade for Fuhrer Trump? Looks like their serious this time?
Hitler’s biggest military parade was during WWII on his 50th birthday–on April 20, 1939 in Berlin. The lavish event involved over 40,000 troops and163 Luftwaffe planes. The parade was a major component of Nazi propaganda aimed at instilling a sense of awe and reverence for the Fuhrer and to put fear into foreign nations.
DJT has always wanted a big military parade in his honor. He got the idea after he stood with President Macron and watched the Bastille Parade in France in 2017. He told his aides at the time he wanted an even bigger one on Pennsylvania Ave. But the event was nixed because of the price tag ($92 million) and DC didn’t want the streets of the Capitol torn up by tanks.
But this year DJT turns 79 and a parade for him would coincide with the Army’s planned 250 year anniversary celebration. Perfect timing. How to pay for the huge price tag for the parade? Simply. It would be paid for through the savings from cutting Medicare, Medicaid, child nutrition programs and Head Start, among others programs Americans depend upon. And a big military parade would highlight all of DJT’s “accomplishments” during the first 100 days–like his tariffs that are crashing the economy. When DJT tells us “I run the country and the world” a parade down Pennsylvania would demonstrate that like nothing else!
wacko
Native-Born Workers Surge By Over 1 Million, Back To All-Time High, As Govt Employees Tumble
“For much of the past 4 years we dutifully reported, month after month, how the US labor market under the Biden administration “grew” almost entirely on the back of “foreign-born” workers, who – as we also first revealed and eventually was widely accepted – were primarily illegal aliens:
Great Replacement Job Shock: 1.3 Million Native-Born Americans Just Lost Their Jobs, Replaced By 635,000 Immigrants: Sept 2024
Wall Street Admits The Biggest Economic Shocker: All Jobs In The Past Year Have Gone To Illegal Aliens: June, 2024
Stunning statistic: there has been ZERO INCREASE in jobs for native-born workers in over five years, since July 2018!: Jan 2024
How is this not the biggest political talking point right now: since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs. pic.twitter.com/Z5HVWmQ24C
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 15, 2024
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/native-born-workers-surge-over-1-million-back-all-time-high-federal-govt-employees-tumble
China Erupts: Furious Workers Riot As Factories Collapse Under Trump’s Tariffs
“The wave of unrest follows a brutal plunge in China’s export orders, now at their lowest since the COVID lockdowns. Goldman Sachs estimates up to 16 million Chinese jobs could vanish as Trump’s tariffs bite deeper into the regime’s weak underbelly.”
https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/01/china-erupts-riot-factories-trump-tariffs/
Isn’t china’s population huge enough to produce good quality products and services and an economy in isolation for some time to come? I don’t see it as a big deal for China. They need to concentrate internally to raise the standard of living.
China has had it. China is top-heavy due to its one-child policy. China is on the verge of collapse. China built “fake” ghost cities simply to cook the books on its economic performance. China has a significant sex-ratio imbalance. China is in a “death spiral.”
NotReallyaFarmer
Well, well, well.
Here we have yet another example of NotReallyaFarmer spreading fake stories, just like his fake story about people in Afghanistan having their arms cut off after receiving smallpox vaccinations.
This story from Daily Caller is completely fake.
If you click on the link you will see this image of riots in China.
image.png
The problem is, this image is from riots in 2012, directed at Japan.
Go to this link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2012/09/anti-japan-protests-in-china/100370/
Look at the 15th photo.
The caption reads:
An anti-Japanese protester throws a gas canister during a demonstration on September 16, 2012 in Shenzhen, China. Protests have taken place across China in the dispute that is becoming increasingly worrying for regional stability
Completely fake !!!!!
Just like the fake farm that NotReallyaFarmer keeps telling us about.
Just like the fake stories about Afghanistan.
You have no credibility.
Walmart Increases Support For USA-Made Products
https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2025/04/29/grow-with-us-how-walmarts-new-program-aims-to-help-small-businesses-go-big
GO AWAY!
EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY AND DECORUM POLICY BY PREVARICATION AND INSOLENT IMPERTINENCE!
BAN FOR LIFE!
It took good ole Dennis Four paragraphs to slide in the, “oh-I forgot-to-mention” bit– that “… a parade for him would coincide with the Army’s planned 250 year anniversary celebration.”
If dennis is NOT the same grub as Gigi and George, they certainly share the same traits—-lifting headlines and information from left-wing rags and restating them here as the go-to truth.
So, Tom, you say that it’s NOT true that Trump is demanding a military parade in his honor–correct? Except that, multiple news outlets say that he is, and he tried to demand that the last time he was stinking up the Oval Office. What proof do you have to the contrary? And blowing millions for the sake of the ego of a malignant narcissist, paid for by taking food away from starving people, cutting school lunch programs and Head Start, is outrageous. I hope someone takes him to court to stop this. It’s one thing for your hero to demand that those syncophantic losers in his cabinet and the dim bulb bottle blondie “press secretary” lie about nonexistent “accomplishments” and a nonexistent “landslide victory”, but to try to force this swill on the rest of us is outrageous, especially given the polls.
Gigi, can we get rid of welfare financial assistance, Medicaid, affirmative action, quotas, discriminatory non-discrimination laws, unfair fair housing laws, etc., ad nauseam, or do you still need them to appear to be a real person?
you can tell that gigi comes from the other side of the tracks. Back-alley vocabulary like “swill” and “chump” and “fat pig” and “ass” Not very ladylike and certainly not befitting a professional so I think another anonymous is right, she is no lawyer.
dear bubble brain brunette gigi, clearly you hate it when georgie and dennis aren’t around to upvote you and you have to do it yourself. Not so much today, though, so you might have to regroup. Did your mama feed you sour milk? What a vile, sour grapes, combative loser! Either contribute something worthwhile here or go such your thumb.
Not tom dum dum
“Except that, multiple news outlets say that he is”
Paraphrased “i read it on a ketchup stained napkin that i found in the waste can at Dairy Queen”
“Out In 60 Days”: US Firm Plans “Accelerated” China Exit
“We’ve been working on moving manufacturing out of China for over a year now, but those efforts have been…accelerated. We’ll probably be out in 60 days,”
— Wyze (@WyzeCam) April 30, 2025
“I think that actually, the threat of tariffs is already bringing back critical supply chains into important industries, chips, and pharma.”
— Eli Lilly CEO Dave Ricks
Mercedes Announces New US Vehicle Production Following Trump Tariffs
“We are getting even closer to the U.S. customer by localizing a core segment model in Tuscaloosa, strengthening our ties to the North American market where a range of Mercedes-Benz vehicles, including the GLE and GLS models, have their roots,” said Mercedes-Benz North America CEO Jason Hoff.
NotReallyaFarmer
NotReallyaFarmer continues to spread fake stories.
The story about Mercedes bringing production to the US is actually a new model that will only be sold in the US.
“Details were limited about what type of vehicle the automaker will build in Alabama, but the company said in the release it would “bring a core segment vehicle” to the U.S. market “tailored to U.S. customer preferences.” Mercedes-Benz primarily produces SUVs in Alabama, including the GLE, GLS and Mercedes-Maybach GLS SUVs, the GLE Coupe and fully electric EQE and EQS models.”
The vehicles that Mercedes builds here, as mentioned above, are big SUV’s designed uniquely for the American market.
They are ONLY produced in the US.
They are not produced in Europe, because big SUV’s are not a popular “thing” there.
The new production here in the US is “tailored to US customer preferences”, in other words another new model JUST for the American market, that would not have been produced anywhere else.
This announcement by Mercedes is just propaganda to try to convince Trump that they are bringing production here that would otherwise have been done elsewhere.
“Mercedes-Benz did not indicate that its decision was influenced by the wave of tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. However, the spokesperson noted the company’s action is in line with its strategy of continuously optimizing its production network, which gives it “flexibility to react to fluctuations and changing market conditions to remain competitive.”
So basically, Mercedes is simply announcing production of yet another unique vehicle “tailored to US customer preferences” that would not have been produced anywhere else.
This announcement has absolutely nothing to do with tariffs.
The new production has been planned for a while.
https://www.automotivedive.com/news/mercedes-benz-add-core-vehicle-production-alabama/746881/
You seem very agitated by the farmer.
Actually, what agitates me is the consistently false information and completely fake stories that he tells about himself, and what is going on in this country
Credibility is determined by a person’s constant respect for their reputation. You have no reputation, so don’t worry about anyone believing you have credibility.
Upstate Farmer has a stellar reputation.
Hmmmm
The farmer consistently posts false information and completely fake stories.
For example he posted a story from the Daily Caller today about alleged riots by unemployed workers in China. That story is completely fake. The story shows a photo of Chinese people rioting. However an internet search that literally took 2 seconds found that photo published in 2012 by The Atlantic, about anti-Japan riots in China.
The story is completely fake.
His other story today about Mercedes moving production from overseas to the US is also fake.
Yesterday he posted a story about his deployment to Afghanistan where he alleges that Afghan civilians were given smallpox vaccinations and the Taliban cut off the individual’s arm.
Completely fake.
He claims to be a farmer, but he is here posting literally all day everyday.
Very strange that a farmer is never out in the fields during the day.
Everything about him is fake.
So I guess in the MAGA world, the measure of a “stellar reputation” is determined by how many lies and fake stories you tell.
Some build on what exists, while others lacking ideas, destroy. Such is the story of your life.
You say Upstate posts lies. Upstate, carrying an identifiable name and icon, posted an article with a source. Without any discussion, you thinly declare Upstate a purveyor of lies. Where is your proof? Such proof lies entirely with your belief that the photo was from 2012 and was published in the Atlantic. That represents your lack of critical thinking skills and ignorance because the photo was clearly marked as a Getty Image, which means it was a stock photo created by someone else.
Your ignorance and hostility represent the lowest form of Humanity. To close, I will repeat what I wrote earlier: Upstate Farmer has a stellar reputation.
The U.S. Army is planning an historic parade through the streets of Washington, D.C., on June 14 that will coincide with and BE PART OF THE ARMY’s LONG-PLANNED 250th CELEBRATION. ABC News
Take your meds dude, you’re unhinged.
Dennis McInliar
On what date is the 250th Anniversary of the establishment of the US Army?
Bozo
They covet the success of America, they bear false witness when no one is “after” them, and they steal another man’s country.
These Illegals and Semi-Illegals (got processed) get to the United States and then don’t follow through with the INS processes. and much has to do with Their own Hypocrisies,
1. They are suspicious of the Government/INS, (Then Why did they come here in the first place? – Hypocrisy 1)
2. They ‘Know-it-All’, or they rely on a person that came before them and thinks they ‘Know-it-All’, (If they didn’t know what to do, then Why didn’t they get the INS help? – Hypocrisy 2)
3. They don’t want to really come to ‘immigrate’, they came for ‘the money’ and send it home (via the Walmart Service Center, Western Union, Xoom, etc.), (Then Why did they claim they say they wanted to stay here? – Hypocrisy 3)
4. They did not respect the Country they came from, so they do not respect Our country, (So why then would you come if ‘You’ didn’t want to change? – Hypocrisy 4)
5. They Lie, They just do it out of their imagination, They think They have to, – The swamp of Hypocrisies – Hypocrisy 5)
This is an Over-Population problem (a symptom of over-population), They spill out of an over-populated area and into Ours. And it’s Global.
Mommies and Daddies and their Children need to go back to where they started from. America is not the magic answer to their problems.
I know that’s sound cold, but Sorry … No Vacancy[!]
Evidence of Diverse, diverse causes for emigration reform in their native nations.
OT
George Washington University Law School grad nominated by President Trump, Whitney Hermandorfer, to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Congratulations to Professor Turley for one of his law students being nominated to USC of Appeals
Whitney Hermandorfer works in the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General as Director of the Strategic Litigation Unit. In that role, Whitney focuses on leading constitutional, statutory, and administrative-law challenges to federal agency action, as well as on defending the State in complex matters at the trial and appellate level. Whitney previously worked at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, DC, where she focused on appellate and administrative-law litigation. Whitney clerked for Justice Samuel Alito in the OT 2018 Supreme Court term and for Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her inaugural OT 2020 term. Prior to that, Whitney clerked for then-Judge Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Richard Leon on the U.S. District Court for D.C. Whitney is a graduate of Princeton University and George Washington University Law School.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/whitney-hermandorfer
These cases highlight the awkwardness of giving automatic birthplace citizenship to newborns of illegal immigrants. It splits the legal status within the family. The immigrant lawyers who jumped on expansive interpretation of the 1868 Citizenship Clause (1868) intended that effect all along, thinking “let’s make it hard to deport parents by giving US citizenship to their child”.
Citizenship Law was never intended to split the family — just the opposite. Take a look at the 1790 Nationality Act. Children of immigrants become US citizens on the same day as their parents are Naturalized — called Citizenship by Derivation. The media have pushed this fact into a black hole to never again appear in print.
Jump forward to 1866. The Civil Rights Act gave the emancipated slaves US Citizenship based on birthplace in the US, but explicitly called out exceptions: foreign dignitaries, foreign invaders, and Indians (not taxed). The South refused to obey this law using State Courts for nullification, so Congress passed the 14th Amendment in 1868 to give the 1866 law Constitutional force. The birthplace citizenship exceptions were not carried over explicitly, but implicitly with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
The question is: What happened to Citizenship by Derivation for immigrant kids in the 1860s?…..NOTHING. This standard procedure, which kept immigrant families intact, was not a matter of controversy. Did anyone at the time think the 14th Amendment repealed or replaced that process? If the 14th changed the law for when and how immigrant children got their Citizenship (at birth instead of at parents’ Naturalization), why did nobody know about it at the time? Wouldn’t people start exercising this new right immediately?
It wasn’t until the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case that Citizenship by Derivation was even questioned, and that happened because Ark’s parents were Chinese, and under a Treaty with Peking, they weren’t allowed to be Naturalized. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court stupidly created two conflicting answers to the question of when and how immigrant children obtain US Citizenship. Derivation was not ruled unconstitutional. It was not repealed. It was simply IGNORED as if it weren’t law since 1790 and was practiced without challenge for 108 years!! That’s because it was common sense to not split family status.
This history will come to roost when Birthright Citizenship comes before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it will help greatly to start seeing the term Citizenship by Derivation appear in print as often as this issue is debated. This highlights the common sense approach to be reinstated.
When is Joe Biden going to be arrested? He should serve prison time for what he did to this country.
Cite a law he broke. That at least shows you know about Constitutional rights to not be imprisoned for unpopularity.
He was just a forgetful, well-meaning old man with dementia, which is why Special Counsel Hur didn’t prosecute for violations of the Espionage Act and ]Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material Act. and the Classified Information Procedures Act.
Forgetful? Yes. Well-meaning? No. Dementia? Yes. So Hur may have been right on his reason for not prosecuting. But then . . . how come he continued as president, even in name only?
Precisely! It is Hur who must be prosecuted and removed for abject corruption.
Jonathan
Why do you suppose it is that the libtard trolls, Gigi, Dennis, and George (aka the 3 stooges) seem to be drawn to your blog every day like moths to a flame?
Why do they cite libtard rags when they come here? Do they somehow imagine that your readers, who ostensibly come here to read your learned analysis and opinions, are interested in what some knucklehead’s opinion is?
Or do they even recognize that the garbage they are quoting is nothing but some whack job’s opinion? May as well quote a gossip column. Heck, Gigenius even refers to these articles as “sources” lmao.
When they cite Huffpost, Vox, The Guardian, et al, they may as well say:
“Look what I found on a napkin in the waste can at Dairy Queen. It has some ketchup on it, but the handwriting is still legible”
The reason is simple.
It is fun to come here to provoke morons like you into posting stupid, insulting comments like the above.
You cult morons are like Pavlov’s dogs.
You are well trained by your cult master to instantly respond with absurd nonsensical ad hominem attacks.
We just have to ring the proverbial bell, and sit back and watch you idiots falling over each other trying to outdo each other with increasingly stupid comments
So much fun !!!!!
Ring, ring, ring!!!!!!
From one moron to another, Well Said Moron!
Thank you for proving my point !!!!!
Ring, ring, ring !!!!!
Next stupid comment please.
This is so much fun !!!!!!!
OT
George Washington University Law School grad nominated by President Trump, Whitney Hermandorfer, to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Congratulations to Professor Turley for one of his law students being nominated to USC of Appeals
Whitney Hermandorfer works in the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General as Director of the Strategic Litigation Unit. In that role, Whitney focuses on leading constitutional, statutory, and administrative-law challenges to federal agency action, as well as on defending the State in complex matters at the trial and appellate level. Whitney previously worked at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, DC, where she focused on appellate and administrative-law litigation. Whitney clerked for Justice Samuel Alito in the OT 2018 Supreme Court term and for Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her inaugural OT 2020 term. Prior to that, Whitney clerked for then-Judge Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Richard Leon on the U.S. District Court for D.C. Whitney is a graduate of Princeton University and George Washington University Law School.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/whitney-hermandorfer
Ring Ring Ring Elvis
Its time to get ready for your shift at the WeHo glory hole
I say we just learn to ignore them. Responding to their bile just begets more engagement dopamine in them. Exercising our 1A rights to speech, just stop responding. they wall of text? scroll past. they respond to your convo? respond to the other person like the trolls aren’t even there. Eventually, their dopamine hits won’t come from this site anymore, and they’ll move on to another blog.
-Rabble
Thank you so much for exactly proving my point!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You MAGA morons really can’t resist the call of the “bell”.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ring, ring, ring !!!!!
Next stupid comment please !!!!!!
I’d make a stupid comment just to humor you, but unfortunately, you beat me to it.
Ring, ring, ring !!!!!
Next comment please
“The Three Stooges”
How apropos!
Thank you for your comment.
Ring, ring, ring !!!!!!
Next please