Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 878 posts

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#241

Post by EasyMark »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

This had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.

but instead of a few cases, now there will be dozens of cases because now each state/district has to fight Trump's authoritarian tendencies, and in the meantime he can imprison (just for starters) illegal immigrants in "3rd countries" known for torture and the worst prison conditions impossible, and seemingly he prefers to do that.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#242

Post by esseph »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #161
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

What *meaningful* action would you have people take? Remember, force is out of the question because it will provide justification for the oppression and make people more willing to accept it.

Force is never out of the question.

The illusion some want you to believe, is that it is.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#243

Post by acoustics »

indil wrote: post #219
acoustics wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

The OP said that the courts were preventing the president from exercising his power under the constitution, I replied that he does not have this power under the constitution. That's all.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. If the president wants to exclude natural-born children of illegal immigrants from citizenship, he can lead an effort to amend the constitution.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#244

Post by EasyMark »

acoustics wrote: post #149
paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

This had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

I really don't understand why they didn't turn the case into a 14th amendment case. I guess they wanted to provide more slack and time for their benefactor and political ally (SCOTUS conservatives Trump)

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#245

Post by EasyMark »

indil wrote: post #219
acoustics wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#246

Post by xienze »

ceejayoz wrote: post #124
timr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution . It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.

The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable.

Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen.

The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves, not any and all pregnant women the world over who manage to reach the US before giving birth. But as you’re noticing, there’s multiple ways people can interpret laws. It’s rarely as cut and dry as “this is obviously against the law!!!”

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#247

Post by 827a »

magicalist wrote: post #214
Amezarak wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's astonishing how many people fail to address the legal argument in the SCOTUS opinion, disregard the legal question altogether, and apparently want the courts to decide how things "should" be, regardless of legality. IANAL but I read SCOTUS opinions regularly and this one is hard to argue with. If things should be different then we need legislative/constitutional changes.

> If things should be different then we need legislative/constitutional changes lol, yes, like birthright citizenship written plainly into the constitution. What good are your further legislative/constitutional changes worth if the executive can just ignore them except for the single individuals who file suit?

The ruling today very explicitly and clearly does not touch the birthright citizenship issue.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#248

Post by stateaffairs »

esseph wrote: post #235
stateaffairs wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Its "politicized" when it's something someone doesn't like. It can't just be, I don't know, a plain reading of the fucking law. It's time to Balkanize.

Most of these blocks have been overturned, and important government action has been unnecessarily delayed.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#249

Post by EasyMark »

Amezarak wrote: post #193
paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

This had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.

It's astonishing how many people fail to address the legal argument in the SCOTUS opinion, disregard the legal question altogether, and apparently want the courts to decide how things "should" be, regardless of legality. IANAL but I read SCOTUS opinions regularly and this one is hard to argue with. If things should be different then we need legislative/constitutional changes.

It's hard to argue for since the 14th amendment is very easy to understand, and it's easy to understand why Trump is overstepping his authority

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#250

Post by magicalist »

Amezarak wrote: post #215
magicalist wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed. Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "wil…

> He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"

yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction.

Meanwhile:

> The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.

(the "declared that by law" is referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that Howard used as the basis of the 14th amendment: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States")

Post reply on HN