placeholder

More of the same. No facts. No reasoning. Just insults. You've still got nothing

"Illegal aliens?" For someone who's so punctilious about legal terminology? At any rate in the way the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof conclusively meant in the 19th century, there's no doubt that undocumented aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Apparently, some posters here believe in inherited guilt.

A No less a justice than John Marshall what jurisdiction means. "But in 19th-century legal usage, being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. had a long-settled, straightforward meaning. As Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812), it meant being subject to U.S. law." https://archive.ph/5C3Xs And in the debates over the 14th Amendment in Senatehat clause was specifically objected to by some members on the grounds that it would grant citizenship to the children of aliens "Sen. Edgar Cowan (R., Pa.) objected to the clause precisely because it would make citizens out of the children of Chinese nationals and “gypsies,” who belonged to different races and cultures. Sen. John Conness (R., Calif.) endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. “The proposition before us,” said Conness, declares that “children begotten of Chinese parents in California . . . shall be citizens.” For Conness, that was a reason to favor the amendment—so that everyone born in America, regardless of race, would be a full and equal citizen. Proponents and opponents of the Citizenship Clause agreed that it applied to aliens’ children." https://archive.ph/5C3Xs Always interesting to see how hypocritical right-wingers can be when it comes to the issue of original intent.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: Someday, non American enterprises are going to come up with their own versions of sports cars and racing cars. I'm even going to go out further on that limb and predict that they will be manufactures with names like McLaren, Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini Bugatti, etc But until that happens, I guess the world will be stuck with what America has to offer.

The Congressional Institute doesn't make the law? So no commentary about the issue is valid. And you accuse me orf garbled thinking. Their cooments explained the law. You offer no rebuttal to that explanation, As for my not knowing what the holding means, There are an awful lot of legal scholars out there who would disagree with you. What makes your comment particularly ludicrous is that you offer nothing about what it does mean. You've got nothing. The supreme court decision does not confine itself to foreign affairs. As for difference between core powers and non-core powers, that looks like a distinction without a difference. At least according to the current supreme court. "An especially baffling aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States is its concept of “presumptive” presidential immunity. The Court ruled that a president’s exercise of “core” powers is “absolutely” immune from prosecution and added that it might hold the exercise of “noncore” powers absolutely immune as well. For now, however, the Court held a president’s use of “noncore” powers only “presumptively” immune." https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/albert-alschuler-writes-about-presumptive-presidential-immunity Given that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and that is a core power according to the Court, he could order the marines to murder whomever he pleases without fear of legal consequence. By the way, there's nothing in the Constitution about presumptive vs core immunity or says a President can't be held liable for criminal acts whether committed under so called core powers or not. And even Alexander Hamilton conceded that once a President is out of office, he can be prosecuted for crimes like anyone else. And, by the way, you're not fooling me with your pretensions to scholarship. It's clear you listen to some expounder of legal theory, no matter how far it might stray from most legal opinion, and then adopt that as your own without actually understanding it. But the thing is no amount of regurtation can hide the fact of how defective your understanding is of the issues. I am still amazed that you could write something like this: "Can a President refuse to enforce a law passed by Congress? Are you claiming that Congress is more powerful than the President when it comes to executive power?" Such a foolish rhetorical question that betrays your massive ignorance.

In other words, you've got nothing. l

Always entertaining to see a Trump supporter recommend non-retaliation.

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about what got to be called the Chicken Tax. Essentially, in retaliation for Germany imposing a high tariff on American chickens, Lyndon Johnson imposed a 25% tariff on pickup trucks. The result was that foreign automakers abandoned the market and left the American automakers the opportunity to enjoy big profits. But what the article also noted is that because pickup trucks made for easy pickings, automakers pretty much abandoned the small car market to asian companies. After all, why struggle to make a profit in a highly competitive sector? The 1960s ‘Chicken Tax’ Shows the Lasting Impact of Tariffs Imported pickups have long incurred a 25% tariff, keeping production within North America but raising little revenue for Washington "While that refuge was helpful at first, it meant Detroit avoided the tough task of matching the competitiveness of Asian manufacturers in smaller vehicles, according to Nick Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research and a former autos analyst." https://archive.ph/WD5sP

Let's start with the silliness of your last sentence. It's always suspect to use contrary to fact propositions. But in this case it's completely ridiculous. If Harris has been elected, do you think she would have turned Musk loose on the government? l should also point out so far what has been lost is basically what Musk gained thanks to his massive support for Trump. Lots of investors piled into Tesla after Trump won. Should they be awarded for what were clearly expectations that Musk's support of Trump would repay itself many times over? Seems like a pretty sleazy bet to me.

If anyone is guilty of garbled thinking it's you. According to your way of thinking apparently the President has the absolute right not to carry out the laws if he so chooses. Where do you come up with this stuff? You believe that there are no checks on the President's power? If that were the case, why even bother to grant the President the veto power? "Congress could rescind appropriations by its normal procedures at any time, but here we are looking at a special category of rescission legislation that is governed by Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to a governing crisis which President Richard Nixon provoked when he refused to spend monies the Legislature had appropriated for various programs and initiatives The President said the monies were not needed, but Congress objected, reminding him that his job was to faithfully execute the laws it passed, and the appropriation was one of those laws... Congress limited the President’s ability to impound funds, but Members nonetheless recognized the President’s role in the policy-making process and enacted a set of procedures whereby the legislature and Administration could collaborate to revise spending policy after each year’s appropriations bills were enacted, as long as Congress had the final say. https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2018/05/17/rescissions-rescissions-how-congress-can-use-the-rescission-process-responsibly/ As for the Supreme Court exempting the President from being subject to criminal charges for criminal acts he authorized using his presidential powers...where have you been? How opaque is the information bubble you apparently inhabit. This was a huge news story "Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Core of the Constitution the doctors separation of powers. the president one opportunity to stop legislation from being enacted. That opportunity is afforded by the veto. After a bill is signed into law, it is the duty of the executive branch is carry out whatever ithat law entails. By withholding funding that has been authorized by Congress and signed into law or by destroying agencies necessary to implement the provisions of that law, the executive branch is givingg itself virtually unlimited veto power. As for the supreme Court, it has declared much to the shock of most legal scholars on the left and right that any criminal act committed by a president using presidential powers is accept from criminal prosecution. What is to stop a president from ordering criminal acts to be committed and then pardoning the agents carried out that criminal act? According to the supreme Court. he would immune from criminal prosecution even after he has left office. What's to stop such a person from using his political office to authorize violence against an opponent's political campaign?

Funny. right wingers used to drown on about "original intent". Not they were being honest but still... Now apparently right wingers when he was one separation of powers doctrine beheaded for the dumpster... It almost doesn't matter since the supreme Court has already made it possible for any president to be a dictator.

Are you seriously tonight that these children were taken from their families in Ukraine? And since when does monitoring equal spying? Just because attention is unwelcome, that doesn't mean it's spying.

Hitler never had have much use for Christians, so it's dubious he would ever have said such a thing. But go look it up if you got a problem with the way the article presents it. Try to keep in mind that even lots of extreme right wingers find Tate repulsive.

What exactly is honest and transparent about this White House? Going after those perceived to be your enemies is a mark of transparency? It is to laugh. If you want to see where this administration stands on transparency, look no further than Musk's recent concealment of information that would allow his claims about savings and government fraud to be checked on.

Until you offer an actual explanation instead of a mere assertion, I'll stick with what I wrote.

That quote is from Andrew Tate. The guy on who's to have the Trump administration intervened to help him get out of Romania where he was being held on human trafficking charges.

Except it's not clear that all or even most of them are members of tren de aragua. The Administration refuses to provide any information. They're basic argument was "trust us" But of course it is the issue of the destination of terrorist even when the definition really doesn't fit. It's kind of life when minors are tried as adults. Because they are people who 1the government wants to punish harshly, it twist definitions to accomplish that. I can remember when Saudi Arabia classified as terrorists women who were campaigning for the right to drive a car.

You've got nothing.

And the worst thing about that they are operating at very high levels of government to the approval of Donald Trump or enjoy it's special favors... Oh wait a minute...

Deflecting much?

Also mentioned one of Donald Trump's and Elon musk's biggest fans, Joe Rogan and his interview with The Holocaust mitigator, Darryll Cooper I wish he claimed that Hitler was an anti-Semite because he loved the German people. He claimed also that Hitler never advocated the extermination of the Jewish people. That is a lie.

Elon Musk retweeted a post on X which said that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust. A real theme developing with these guys! Speaking of which: Online influencer Andrew Tate flew to Florida after the Trump administration reportedly pressured the government of Romania, where he is awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, to allow him to travel. Tate, in addition to the alleged sex crimes “piece,” has an extensive record of making antisemitic comments, i.e., having written on X that Hitler was correct to believe that Jews want white Christians to commit “mass genetic suicide” by intermarrying with lesser racial groups. https://archive.ph/A9Mkg

Yes I should have caught that. The figures I cited included tariffs from everwhere. Given whatever the successor to NAFTA is called, of course the weighed mean tariff for the USA will be lower.