The Trump Presidency will be in the top 10 in our nation's history

[BugI02]

I don't think there are reasonable people losing their minds over it. I don't like the idea of doing something like this by EO as it's beyond the President's power to do, but there's no constitutional crisis yet. It's just talk. Maybe Trump has no intention of signing such an EO at all. Maybe its proximity to the election is not a coincidence. But if he does follow through, people should wait to see what he's actually doing if he does it before they get too upset about it.

And there are some possibilities that I think could be constitutionally compatible. It clearly establishes the concept of birthright citizenship but there is a gray area in terms of precisely to whom it applies. If the EO interprets it in a way favorable to him, without trampling over the constitution, then fair enough. But, people have to understand that whatever is done by EO is only as permanent as the president who signed it.

I find this a much more rational position, jamil (I know - damning you with faint praise). I prefer trying to craft some sort of attack on a problem to experiencing the vapors about it. Because I accept the rule of law, I accept that SCOTUS may shut down this avenue of attack and I would accept that. That doesn't mean I would not appreciate the attempt; nor that I wouldn't also accept attacking the same problem again from a different angle

 

[jamil]

That's because most people don't know how the government is supposed to work.

It's not a bad thing to inform them.

Agreed. I have already raised this idea in another thread during an exchange of broadsides with the HMCS T.Lex (The President Trump Immigration Thread #2228)

I give the man (Trump) enormous credit for not just sitting on his hands and saying "There is nothing we can do". We don't have trains in Columbus, so I can't check on what level of Nazism he is exhibiting currently


ETA: This was in response to your #390 GFGT - should have quoted it for clarity

There is no problem with saying the checks and balances which protects one side from the [STRIKE]rule[/STRIKE] whims of the other works both ways.

And this putative surfeit of moderates has affected the course of recent events exactly how, pray tell?

Perhaps they should band together into their own tribe where their numerical superiority will allow them to implement the programs and strategies they don't seem to have

Well, what grand putative surfeit of Trumpers are really out there? I mean genuine died in the wool, "trump will be the bestest president ever", he can do no wrong, he's playing 4d chess, Trumpers.

Most people want borders. Most people want them protected to some extent. Most people want immigration, but don't want it to be without due scrutiny. That's a fairly moderate position. They don't agree with the far left "no borders" or the far right "purity" purge. So it's not as putative as you'd like to believe. Because many moderates supported Trump only because it was the least evil doesn't mean you should count those voters as thinking just like you. And don't get me wrong, there's a **** ton of ardent Trumpers, especially in the reddest states. But they pale in comparison to moderates. Most people fall within a range of moderate views.

But, I'll say this. The more crazy the left gets, the more people are willing to go all in with Trump on a lot of things. I have to admit that during the few minutes I can tolerate of listening to Nancy Pelosi speak, for example, I think there is no way I'm not voting for Trump in two years. And because congress is at stake, and even far Trump is a lesser evil than anything Democrats have to offer, I'll probably vote straight ticket R come Tuesday. And I can barely stand some of those candidates I'm going to vote for. I just can't believe Indiana couldn't pick a better Republican than Braun.

Its like a running play in football - don't like what I'm doing, make me stop (a favorite analogy). But that requires you to get down into the trenches and get dirty and get banged up a little; forgive me if I don't suspend respiration waiting for that to happen

Remember, Kasich is available very soon if you need a standard-bearer (and can figure out if he stands for anything). We'll pay the freight!


ETA: The rhetorical you, not you personally

Kasich is a political **********.

I'm not saying I want a centrist. I'm not a centrist. I don't mind having a principled candidate who ticks as many of my own ideological checkboxes as possible. But I want them to stay in the lines. I want a reasonable right wing. I want rule of law. I don't want an irrational right wing, which is what we have now. Get rid of the rule book in football and see what happens. Everyone one-ups everyone on how far they're willing to go and next thing you know it's all about the brawl. Get out of the mud. Join civilization.

 

[BugI02]

It's not a bad thing to inform them.



There is no problem with saying the checks and balances which protects one side from the [STRIKE]rule[/STRIKE] whims of the other works both ways.



Well, what grand putative surfeit of Trumpers are really out there? I mean genuine died in the wool, "trump will be the bestest president ever", he can do no wrong, he's playing 4d chess, Trumpers.

Most people want borders. Most people want them protected to some extent. Most people want immigration, but don't want it to be without due scrutiny. That's a fairly moderate position. They don't agree with the far left "no borders" or the far right "purity" purge. So it's not as putative as you'd like to believe. Because many moderates supported Trump only because it was the least evil doesn't mean you should count those voters as thinking just like you. And don't get me wrong, there's a **** ton of ardent Trumpers, especially in the reddest states. But they pale in comparison to moderates. Most people fall within a range of moderate views.

But, I'll say this. The more crazy the left gets, the more people are willing to go all in with Trump on a lot of things. I have to admit that during the few minutes I can tolerate of listening to Nancy Pelosi speak, for example, I think there is no way I'm not voting for Trump in two years. And because congress is at stake, and even far Trump is a lesser evil than anything Democrats have to offer, I'll probably vote straight ticket R come Tuesday. And I can barely stand some of those candidates I'm going to vote for. I just can't believe Indiana couldn't pick a better Republican than Braun.



Kasich is a political **********.

I'm not saying I want a centrist. I'm not a centrist. I don't mind having a principled candidate who ticks as many of my own ideological checkboxes as possible. But I want them to stay in the lines. I want a reasonable right wing. I want rule of law. I don't want an irrational right wing, which is what we have now. Get rid of the rule book in football and see what happens. Everyone one-ups everyone on how far they're willing to go and next thing you know it's all about the brawl. Get out of the mud. Join civilization.

I will confess that talk of the EO on birthright citizenship may have rocked my opinion of Trump a bit. If the INGO constitutional lawyers are correct and the 14th virtually locks down BC even against congressional action, and Trump knows or should know this (an interesting question of itself since we don't know who's advising him or if he is taking the advice being offered) then it brings into question the level of cynicism involved. I would be less happy if it simply is a 'get out the vote' strategy rather than a real attempt to move the needle

Vis a vis the highlighted text, I did my time as an undergrad when Woody Hayes was coach. Is there a play in football that doesn't involve some kind of running back and the mud? Isn't the quarterback basically just a delivery boy?

 

[jamil]

I will confess that talk of the EO on birthright citizenship may have rocked my opinion of Trump a bit. If the INGO constitutional lawyers are correct and the 14th virtually locks down BC even against congressional action, and Trump knows or should know this (an interesting question of itself since we don't know who's advising him or if he is taking the advice being offered) then it brings into question the level of cynicism involved. I would be less happy if it simply is a 'get out the vote' strategy rather than a real attempt to move the needle

Vis a vis the highlighted text, I did my time as an undergrad when Woody Hayes was coach. Is there a play in football that doesn't involve some kind of running back and the mud? Isn't the quarterback basically just a delivery boy?

We're not playing football. This culture war has become a struggle, mostly between the extremes, for ideological control of society. And it is worth saying that the left, wanting so much to change the world, has pretty much created an atmosphere where people who didn't really want the world to change, got fed up and wanted to punch back. But many of us don't want to lose Western values in the process.

The large majority in the middle don't want either extreme. And that's important. If you're rational, it doesn't matter if you're left or right, you see the dangers of both fringes. People on the left can see the insane social justice and it scares the crap out of them too.

As far as the EO, like I said, it would depend what he actually does with it. If it interprets the gray area of to whom birthright citizenship applies in a reasonable way, I don't see a problem with it. But if it matches his rhetoric, it sort of demonstrates his opinion of the constitution.

So where do you think the needle belongs? And what constitutional authority do you think the president has to move it where you think it should be? In your thinking does that needle necessarily hit a hard stop of constitutionality before getting there?

 

[BugI02]

We're not playing football. This culture war has become a struggle, mostly between the extremes, for ideological control of society. And it is worth saying that the left, wanting so much to change the world, has pretty much created an atmosphere where people who didn't really want the world to change, got fed up and wanted to punch back. But many of us don't want to lose Western values in the process.

The large majority in the middle don't want either extreme. And that's important. If you're rational, it doesn't matter if you're left or right, you see the dangers of both fringes. People on the left can see the insane social justice and it scares the crap out of them too.

As far as the EO, like I said, it would depend what he actually does with it. If it interprets the gray area of to whom birthright citizenship applies in a reasonable way, I don't see a problem with it. But if it matches his rhetoric, it sort of demonstrates his opinion of the constitution.

So where do you think the needle belongs? And what constitutional authority do you think the president has to move it where you think it should be? In your thinking does that needle necessarily hit a hard stop of constitutionality before getting there?

The needle belongs at "If your parents are both in the country legally (green card), your child will be considered for birthright citizenship subject to the vetting of the parents." The more the parents have appeared and participated in the system, the easier and quicker this will be. Temporary visa statis will not be sufficient.No legal status, citizenship will not even be considered. Flopping across our geographic border just in time to squirt a kid is nowheres near enough commitment to America and its ideals to be worthy of reward

If one parent is a naturalized or natural born citizen, citizenship is automatic provided they are married; if not decision devolves from the mother's status. If both parents are naturalized or natural born, citizenship is automatic, formal relationship or not

As far as authority, USCIS and DHS are under presidential authority. He could legally direct them to interpret citizenship in some similar manner and to not accord it to illegals. This authority would be subject to SCOTUS (eventually) ruling whether this was a constitutional use of executive authority. If they rule against the administration, that is the full stop for the needle. Such a process should not engender the proverbial "constitutional crisis" unless and until one side or the other refuses to acknowledge the rule of law. The attempt to address the situation should not be limited by public opinion, only by rulings of the courts (see: Immigration Ban)

An attempt to suborn the court or failure to obey its dictum would be grounds for impeachment proceedings, and by failure to obey I mean willful disobedience, not failure to meet a deadline despite a good faith effort as was the case with reuniting families seperated by border policy changes

 

[BugI02]

And we most certainly are playing football. Plays are being run, coaches are determining strategy behind the scenes and the lines of scrimmage are a dynamic stasis, with any movement very much out of proportion to the effort expended.

And it is well on the way to becoming 'smash-mouth' football

 

[Fargo]

And we most certainly are playing football. Plays are being run, coaches are determining strategy behind the scenes and the lines of scrimmage are a dynamic stasis, with any movement very much out of proportion to the effort expended.

And it is well on the way to becoming 'smash-mouth' football

The problem with that analogy is that football players don't take a solemn oath to uphold certain things. Good government shouldn't be a series of power plays based off Machiavelli.

That said, I am enough of a realist to accept that we are far far far afield from the system of government framed out in our Constitution, and have been for quite some time.

 

[BugI02]

The problem with that analogy is that football players don't take a solemn oath to uphold certain things. Good government shouldn't be a series of power plays based off Machiavelli.

That said, I am enough of a realist to accept that we are far far far afield from the system of government framed out in our Constitution, and have been for quite some time.

We tried turning the other cheek to the left. We ran out of cheeks and patience

In 2016 we held on 4th and one, and we've been trying to get back across mid field ever since

 

[KG1]

The problem with that analogy is that football players don't take a solemn oath to uphold certain things. Good government shouldn't be a series of power plays based off Machiavelli.

That said, I am enough of a realist to accept that we are far far far afield from the system of government framed out in our Constitution, and have been for quite some time.

Agree with that last line. The lines have become blurred between the three branches.

The Legislative branch has abrogated their role to the Executive and Judicial branch due to not being able to function as a Legislative body because of partisan politics. When that happens you see things the likes of Obama and now Trump trying to move the ball by bypassing a feckless Legislative branch via the EO pen.

Then you have Democrats deferring to the courts to do their bidding because they can't get their agenda past the GOP.

It's not the Court or the Executive's role to legislate via court decree or Executive Order.

 

[Dead Duck]

It might just be me, but it seems the president shouldn't be able to change the Constitution on a whim. A president even making such a suggestion is proof enough as why he'll never be considered in the "top 10."

I agree with Kut.
Trump should be considered in the "Top 5."

 

[hoosierdoc]

BUMP

 

[Tombs]

It already is.

 

[NKBJ]

Kidding aside, are we witnessing a third crime family effectively being shut down in only the first term of the Trump presidency? Is that what we're seeing? If that's the case then history will not be able, will not be allowed, to sing his praises sufficiently to do the man justice.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Kidding aside, are we witnessing a third crime family effectively being shut down in only the first term of the Trump presidency? Is that what we're seeing? If that's the case then history will not be able, will not be allowed, to sing his praises sufficiently to do the man justice.

not sure what you mean

 

[NKBJ]

not sure what you mean

1. Bush
2. Clinton
3. Biden

 

[Keith_Indy]

1. Bush
2. Clinton
3. Biden

I'd have guessed Kerry, since he's implicated in some of the Chinese deals.

&&&&&&&&&&

Looking at the start date of the thread, my my, wasn't someone being very optimistic...

 

[NKBJ]

Yeah, you're right, Kerry and others. You know the list we could make might be woefully incomplete!

And wondering about who has the keys to the vaults down at Epstein Classic Movies, we'll never know who ordered what pizza.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kidding aside, are we witnessing a third crime family effectively being shut down in only the first term of the Trump presidency? Is that what we're seeing? If that's the case then history will not be able, will not be allowed, to sing his praises sufficiently to do the man justice.

Uhhh… I have no idea what you're talking about. Trump hasn't created any sort of environment that holds any of those families accountable for "whatever" crimes you think they have committed. More than likely, it's him and his syndicate that are about to be exposed. History is written by the victors right? Well, if history isn't allowed to speak on the "accomplishments," of Trump, then assumedly he lost.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Uhhh… I have no idea what you're talking about. Trump hasn't created any sort of environment that holds any of those families accountable for "whatever" crimes you think they have committed. More than likely, it's him and his syndicate that are about to be exposed. History is written by the victors right? Well, if history isn't allowed to speak on the "accomplishments," of Trump, then assumedly he lost.

So, you going to be a guard in the leftist reeducation camps they're threatening...

 

[PaulF]

So, you going to be a guard in the leftist reeducation camps they're threatening...

They've had those things for years...they're called universities.