Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_Brackite]

Conway's husband pens op-ed calling Trump's birthright proposal 'unconstitutional'

George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, co-wrote an op-ed on Tuesday rejecting President Trump's assertion that he could do away with birthright citizenship through an executive order.

"Such a move would be unconstitutional and would certainly be challenged. And the challengers would undoubtedly win," Conway wrote in The Washington Post with attorney Neal Katyal.

Conway, a self-described conservative, and Katyal, a self-described liberal, argued that the authors of the Constitution's 14th Amendment were "simple and clear" in drafting a provision that meant anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the country.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... osal%3famp

[_Kevin Graham]

Paul Ryan says Trump cannot do this with an executive order and Trump lashes out at Ryan.

We've seen this movie before but it is good to see at least some sanity from the GOP on this issue.

[_Water Dog]

No he isn't. Mark Levin isn't a "credible" guy.

In August 2018, Levin stated that Mueller is a "greater threat to this Republic and Constitution than anything Vladimir Putin did during the [2016] campaign."[92][93]

Yeah, so? If the basis for the special counsel is political, he's right. I'll wait until it's all said and done to form a final opinion, but I'm not impressed so far.

Evolutionary biology

On April 29, 2018, Levin dedicated his weekly Fox News program to the thesis that evolutionary biology isn't a science, claiming that "this notion of Darwinism, atheism, really progressivism ... they really don't work with constitutionalism" adding that "Darwinianism ... leads to forms of tyranny, in my view".[94] Levin also attacked the validity of other sciences including political science, behavioral science and social science, bemoaning that they are "applied by the progressives, by the communists" and "had their birth out of, among others Darwinism". The following day on his radio show, Levin further clarified his position by remarking that "DNA is a science, evolution is not a science".[95]

Who cares about evolution? Russel Nelson is credible on the subject of heart surgery, but he doesn't believe in evolution either. Levin is not a biologist, he's an attorney and a particular expert on constitutional law. If you have something that makes a clown out of him in these regards, let me know. He has a pretty good track record. The only thing I'm aware of that bothers me about Levin, in terms of his opinions re the constitution, is the battles he had with Tom Woods. I happen to like Tom Woods, who's a historian and libertarian. They had some disagreements over nullification in particular, and Levin likes to refer to him as a neo-confederate, an invective that I can't stand. Levin is a bit weak on matters like the surveillance state. Which is to say I tend to disagree with him, but he's still competent in terms of the legal analysis. He's more of a true Lincoln style republican whereas I lean more towards the libertarian end of the spectrum.

[_MeDotOrg]

I think as Trump gets more and more into campaign mode, where the majority of his days are taken up with rallies of supporters, he begins to live in an echo chamber where less of the outside world seeps in. His sense of the 'transactional now' is both more intense and more distorted, and leads him into the magical thinking where he believes that when the 14th Amendment says "all persons" it somehow does not mean all persons.

I would expect more hyperbole between now and Tuesday. After Tuesday, I don't think God knows what's going to happen.

[_Themis]

Yeah, so? If the basis for the special counsel is political, he's right. I'll wait until it's all said and done to form a final opinion, but I'm not impressed so far.

Wasn't it the republicans who created the special counsel to investigate it and is Mueller not considered a conservative?

[_canpakes]

I think as Trump gets more and more into campaign mode, ...

He never left it.

[_Gunnar]

Paul Ryan says Trump cannot do this with an executive order and Trump lashes out at Ryan.

We've seen this movie before but it is good to see at least some sanity from the GOP on this issue.

Nothing is more consistently Trump than his continual lashing out at people who tell the truth.

[_Gunnar]

And the most remarkable thing about Water Dog is how oblivious he is to how badly he has been bested and spanked by RI, EA and others on this topic and others, including the climate change threads.

[_Gunnar]

It is blazingly obvious to me that if any President can get away with altering, reinterpreting or negating any part of the U.S. Constitution, at will, by merely issuing and signing an executive order, that reduces the Constitution to nothing more than worthless scraps of paper.

[_Chap]

It is blazingly obvious to me that if any President can get away with altering, reinterpreting or negating any part of the U.S. Constitution, at will, by merely issuing and signing an executive order, that reduces the Constitution to nothing more than worthless scraps of paper.

Yup. Things are in the Constitution precisely in order that there will be some fixed landmarks in the legal structure of the USA that are really, really hard to change.

It is one things to see Trumpists (we can't say 'Republicans' now Ryan has spoken out) fantasising about legal ways of 'interpreting' the clear and well-understood words of the 14th Amendment that won't even get near the Supreme Court before they are struck down.

It is another when we see people saying 'Well, the President has plenary powers, doesn't he?', and suggesting that Trump can simply suspend or change articles in the Constitution at will. If that is the case, there just isn't a Constitution any more. Fortunately, that does not seem to be a widely held view. But if it was, that would be a far, far more serious threat to the USA than the (eventual, and not unprecedented) arrival at the frontier of a group of rag-tag asylum seekers from Honduras.