The Results of the Court Assault on Trump will Be......

[Yagoda]

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/19/trump-plot-supreme-court-immigration

 

This article lays out, in simplistic terms, the legal strategies involved in the battle over Executive power. If you ignore the made up quotes from supposed Trump officials, and the silly superficial yammering about the "Trump Court" being right wing, or whatever, you can see that finally, after 200 plus years, we are going to see hopefully a resolution on Executive power as it relates to a modern executive of a global superpower.

[riclag]

From your source:

"You're going to have Hamas supporters who have been naturalized within the last 10 years, and they are eligible to lose their status as citizens and get deported," Davis said. "It's worth it."

 

The ACLU and the leftist press heads

will explode!

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/19/trump-plot-supreme-court-immigration

 

This article lays out, in simplistic terms, the legal strategies involved in the battle over Executive power. If you ignore the made up quotes from supposed Trump officials, and the silly superficial yammering about the "Trump Court" being right wing, or whatever, you can see that finally, after 200 plus years, we are going to see hopefully a resolution on Executive power as it relates to a modern executive of a global superpower.

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.

[Yagoda]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Funny. right wingers used to drown on about "original intent". Not they were being honest but still...

Tell us how the original intent doctrine differs from the position of broad executive power as set forth in Article II

 

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Now apparently right wingers when he was one separation of powers doctrine beheaded for the dumpster...

Tell us what that means.

 

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It almost doesn't matter since the supreme Court has already made it possible for any president to be a dictator.

Tell us what case that was. Tell us what the holding of the case was.

 

So.... confused and sad emojis and some flames will follow. As to any understanding of the issues I raised. Crickets.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Tell us how the original intent doctrine differs from the position of broad executive power as set forth in Article II

 

Tell us what that means.

 

Tell us what case that was. Tell us what the holding of the case was.

 

So.... confused and sad emojis and some flames will follow. As to any understanding of the issues I raised. Crickets.

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?

[Yagoda]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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?

I can guarantee, ladies and gentlemen, that he has never read ANY Supreme Court case.

 

Tell us the name of the case you are referring to in the Second paragraph and the specific holding of the case. Also, do you think Barak Obama should be charged with murder then?

 

As to your First point, which is more on topic, how do you reconcile your garbled something you set forth with the text of Article II? What is the Presidents Power over Executive agencies? 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?

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

I can guarantee, ladies and gentlemen, that he has never read ANY Supreme Court case.

 

Tell us the name of the case you are referring to in the Second paragraph and the specific holding of the case. Also, do you think Barak Obama should be charged with murder then?

 

As to your First point, which is more on topic, how do you reconcile your garbled something you set forth with the text of Article II? What is the Presidents Power over Executive agencies? 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?

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

 

 

 

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2018/05/17/rescissions-rescissions-how-congress-can-use-the-rescission-process-responsibly/

The Congressional Institute doesn't make the law, I'm glad to see you answered my questions with just some garbled analysis that you pulled off the internet

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

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."

Hooray, looks like you looked one up. The only problem is you don't know what that holding means. You should try to read it more than once, maybe use a dictionary, and relate the holding to the issues in the case. 

 

So here let's work on some factual scenarios. Barack Obama directs that a missile be dropped on an American citizen overseas. Is he entitled to Absolute or presumptive immunity? Do you know what presumptive immunity is?

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

The Congressional Institute doesn't make the law, I'm glad to see you answered my questions with just some garbled analysis that you pulled off the internet

 

Hooray, looks like you looked one up. The only problem is you don't know what that holding means. You should try to read it more than once, maybe use a dictionary, and relate the holding to the issues in the case. 

 

So here let's work on some factual scenarios. Barack Obama directs that a missile be dropped on an American citizen overseas. Is he entitled to Absolute or presumptive immunity? Do you know what presumptive immunity is?

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.

 

[Jim Blue]

Looks like it's a bad day at the tracks !

[Yagoda]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

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.

So you have just selected an assertion, read one paragraph and made your reasoned conclusion?

 

OK here is the contrary

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=smulrforum

(For the norms here who alwys seek to learn, its very well written)

 

Now, since you oppose Presidential immunity, you would support indicting Barak Obama for murdering  American citizen? 

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

"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.

 

 

Again, for the forum, and so its clear, the questions on Presidential Power set forth above are "foolish rhetorical questions" that show "massive ignorance? Correct?

 

Watch him avoid the Barak question again and the ones about his opinion of Presidential power. He will babble something cut and pasted from somewhere, without understanding, with a sprinking of sad and confused emojis and flames from his sycophants.

[jerrymahoney]

NB  January 23, 2025

Judge blocks Trump’s ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship

A federal judge said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a temporary restraining order to block it.

 

Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who sits in Seattle, granted the request by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states for the emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.

 

“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle/index.html

[Yagoda]

17 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

NB  January 23, 2025

Judge blocks Trump’s ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship

A federal judge said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a temporary restraining order to block it.

 

Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who sits in Seattle, granted the request by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states for the emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.

 

“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle/index.html

Its a far more complex legal question than he thinks. District Judges have an inflated opinion of themselves. But off to the Supreme Court eventually.

 

The whole debate is based on "jurisdiction". Can you explain both sides to us?

[jerrymahoney]

The judge in the case is a Reagan appointee.

[hotsun]

22 hours ago, riclag said:

From your source:

"You're going to have Hamas supporters who have been naturalized within the last 10 years, and they are eligible to lose their status as citizens and get deported," Davis said. "It's worth it."

 

The ACLU and the leftist press heads

will explode!

 

 

Yes. No mercy, please.

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Its a far more complex legal question than he thinks. District Judges have an inflated opinion of themselves. But off to the Supreme Court eventually.

 

The whole debate is based on "jurisdiction". Can you explain both sides to us?

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.