anon_
2d ago
I'm sure they are, but I'm also relatively sure they are entitled to their own view on separation of powers. As noted below by another poster, it's historical precedent that Congress & The President cooperate on it.
anon_
2d ago
I mean, it's a verifiable truth that many people are on average more politically aligned with their spouse than a median American.
I don't support the injunctions, but I can see a fairly clear causal pathways where the judge and their spouse both believe in a set of axioms and vibes about the republic that lead them to where they were. And yes, they were all overturned (as they should be).
anon_
2d ago
I think this misses something very crucial. To borrow from another revolutionary, they came not to abolish English Law but to fulfill it.
Moreover, there is significant verbiage in the Declaration of Independence first, on not renouncing one's due allegiance for trivial or transient causes, and second on claiming that it was the King that had violated his duties first and foremost.
It was certainly quite different than revolutionary France that swept away the Ancien Regime and replaced it root and stem with their own devising. Of course, England had a centuries long tradition that, at least imperfectly, matched their ideology.
anon_
2d ago
This topic can often boil down to a question of whether individual liberty is or is not more important than the government taking steps to keep society physically and mentally healthy. But that is not an answerable question. It really is just a matter of taste, odd as that might seem.
While I do get and agree with this, there is some useful discourse around the implications of those vibe-driven policies.
For example, I'm relatively OK with laxity on drugs, but I wish those folks would either ge% behind efforts to exclude the indigent from libraries/parks or else admit that this laxity has a real consequence in the destruction of those places and the deprivation of those that would usually benefit from them.
One doesn't have to confront the unsolvable issues to have that conversation. And maybe it helps not to talk about it directly but to work on how to accommodate it and what tradeoffs are needed.
anon_
2d ago
There are DC judges evaluating suits trying to find a justification to block it, and their motivation is primarily that their wives aren't going to be invited and they're going to hear about it for the next 10 years.
I'm sure you can come up with a better model of your opponents' thoughts that this.
anon_
2d ago
If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.
This cuts both says. What would we all say if Biden unilaterally raised the price of oil to $100 in some (dubious?) climate crusade.
Maybe it's for a worthy cause, but then we're just negotiating on the price.
anon_
2d ago
The meaning of naturalization in Article I of the US Constitution
The US Constitution provides that Congress has the power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Courts have generally pointed to this as evidence of legislative authority here, going so far as to say "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned".
There is much discussed about what it means and what are the rules around excluding or removing non-citizens, but missing (for me, maybe I'm reading the wrong sources) is the flip side of the question: what does it mean to admit or naturalize one.
Back to Blackstone
Blackstone is usually the baseline for founding-era American legal thought, so let's peruse through his treatise on the matter and "the first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects."
Foremost for Blackstone is allegiance (weirdly shortened to ligeance in a few places) -- those born within the realm owe "natural allegiance" immediately on their birth. Indeed, Blackstone doesn't even believe you have the right to renounce this, stating that it is "a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature". Visitors, on the other hand, owe "local allegiance" for so long as they are around and not a moment longer. There is also a middle state, "denizens", akin to a lawful resident, that owes allegiance and is permitted to reside but is not granted the duties of natural born citizens.
The more interesting piece to me is what it means to naturalize. Blackstone here says that parliament gets that power, by which "an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king's ligeance; except only that he is incapable ... of being a member of the privy council, or parliament".
Vattel's Natural Law
Vattel likewise starts with the core distinction between natives and aliens. He surveys though, that England is relatively unique in requiring the consent of the legislature (and not just the ruler) to naturalize. Like Blackstone, he also refers to a half state of those allowed to inhabit but not granted citizenship that he calls "inhabitants".
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. [...]] in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies
[ As an aside, Vattel also saw that no citizen with a useful skill be allowed to leave: "Every citizen owes his personal services to his country; and a mechanic, in particular, who has been reared, educated, and instructed in its bosom, cannot lawfully leave it, and carry to a foreign land that industry which he acquired at home, unless his country has no occasion for him, or he cannot there obtain the just fruit of his labour and abilities." -- I didn't set out to read about bars to emigration here but it's interesting that it comes up on a repeated sense. Maybe that's worth another post. ]
Federalist #42
Madison looks more to alignment between the States, looking at the unworkability of individual states both being required to protect the privileges of all Americans. To him, subsuming the authority in the United States was as essential to harmony between the States having a uniform rule of bankruptcy, uniform rules on weights/measures and the like. This flows again from the above -- citizenship is singular and indelible.
My Take
Really for my own curiosity, I think I understand a lot better the intent. On a meta note, I reiterate that it's weird to have so much discourse on exclusion/removal without anyone talking about the inverse operation.
anon_
6d ago
What do you think naturalization means? Because I struggle to think of any reading of Article 1 that would result in "the law cannot make them American" as a conclusion.
anon_
6d ago
The implementing institution is composed of personnel that are chosen by the political branches.
anon_
6d ago
Sure, but having exercised those powers in the past to naturalize individuals, those individuals are now naturalized.
They have done the thing that they are expressly empowered to do.
anon_
6d ago
Forget Schooner for a moment, what positive meaning do you ascribe to Art I, Section 8 pt iii ?
The Congress shall have Power To ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
anon_
6d ago
I was the one in favor of accountability through the electoral process. That's how people in a democratic society are meant to hold the government accountable. And that's the thing that protects the largest number of people in the future.
anon_
7d ago
I think my standard for beyond the pale is something like "beat the living jesus out of the guy that wasn't resisting", not break a gate and steal a trifling amount of money.
anon_
7d ago
There is a political process by which a legislative branch can pass institutional safeguards.
Look at the city of Oakland, they've got so many that they've all but hobbled their police department with them. By choice.
anon_
7d ago
He indeed had a veto against obeying that illegal order. His obedience was a personal moral failing and he deserves shame to be heaped onto him.
I suspect you are not really willing to bite this bullet.
If you are, then I guess I commend you, but I'm not particularly willing to concede to some future Dem DHS that they can decline to enforce immigration law (and in doing so veto Congress' law) because they believe it's illegal and/or immoral. In a world where large parts of the country deeply disagrees with what is legal & moral, an individual veto is like throwing policy into the wind.
I'd also note that "name and shame" is the weakest possible form of accountability. The strongest is ensuring accountability through the ballot box.
anon_
11d ago
Those individuals were carrying out the will of the elected officials that supervise those departments. As well they generally should (except when those officials ask things that are beyond the pale) we can't have a democracy and also give the individuals that are staffing that agency at the time veto power over everyone else.
anon_
17d ago
Just to distinguish, the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates are canonically the breadbaskets of the ancient world and are largely Arab.
The Arab States in the Gulf, not so much.
anon_
18d ago
The presidency tends to flip flop because Americans periodically vote for change.
I wouldn’t accept a later run if I were him.
anon_
18d ago
Brother the folks running Iran are not better. They also live off oil revenue and are degenerate.
The worse thing about Iran is that they rule over a populace with decent innate potential (well, subtracting anyone with means and will to leave).
anon_
20d ago
Miller is barely beating Obama's run rate at deporting immigrants. 500K a year instead of Obama's 400K. At this rate he'll be done in (checks notes) 20 years.
Whether it's his fault or he's just outmatched by the liberal barbed wire, he's certainly not "getting things done".
anon_
20d ago
To be fair, a Tomahawk that is mistargeted is a few million we could have spent actually hitting the right target.
anon_
20d ago
Sure. But if he offends you aesthetically and not on the merits, then don't start in on a death toll.
I understand that there was demand for someone to put on a crisp suit and portray an image of careful and meticulous balance. My take that is that aesthetic gloss is, at best, neutral to the actual thing.
anon_
20d ago
Man, how many Japanese kids and teachers were incinerated when we firebombed Tokyo? War is terrible, that's why we shouldn't be overly fond of it.
What's remarkable is less about what happened from 2019 to 2026 and more about what happened in the time prior to that. I'm all for targeted munitions and accurate intelligence and whatnot, but all kinetic action is, frankly, a broadsword. We're lying to ourselves if we imagine otherwise.
I don't even like Hegseth, he's not a particular good SecDefWar. But he's right that the military's job is to be lethal. If you want to avoid all that, that's on State.
And yet after victory despite instituting a political system (separation of powers) that was in direct contravention of the British system (parliamentary supremacy) they at the same time left continuity English legal system. The majority of States adopted English Common Law as the presumptive source except when explicitly altered, in Constitutions contemporaneous with the Founding:
And so forth.
Indeed. But they were dealing with very different substrates! France had no centuries long tradition of representative democracy and rule of law. So you're right, the US revolution was more of a secession.
More options
Context Copy link