Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9hr ago
I think this post conflates different policies and their impacts. Tariffs, for example, do not lower the price of domestically produced goods for international consumers. That is, if the United States imposes a tariff on steel that does not make US-produced steel cheaper for international steel buyers. It makes internationally-produced steel more expensive for US steel consumers. Government subsidy of US steel production may lower prices for international consumers but that's not what a tariff is. Both articles you link to (Noah Smith and Asia Times) are specifically about industry subsidization, not tariffs. The two policies operate differently and there is no reason to conflate them like this.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11hr ago
I'm aware this is common practice at the supreme court but I think that practice is quite bad. It's also totally contradictory with any theory of constitutional interpretation other than a "living constitution" one.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
Personally I find the "we've always done it this way" pretty compelling.
Set aside for a moment the question of what the 14th amendment means, who it grants citizenship to. Whatever it means, that meaning is not open to change by executive order. If the 14th amendment granted (or not) citizenship to some group of people it did so whether or not Trump ever signed his executive order. Then either:
1. The understanding of the 14th amendment that's prevailed for the last century and change is correct. In which case Trump's executive order is unconstitutional. OR
2. The meaning of the 14th amendment implied by Trump's executive order is correct. In which case there is some unknown population (probably numbering at least millions) of people who the government has been treating like citizens (voting, passports) but aren't and never have been.
The Trump EO tries to sidestep the problems in (2) by purporting to be prospective only but that's not how the constitution works!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
I think it is most likely about the southern border. The problem with trying to use control of the federal government to bootstrap one-party rule, and especially cancel elections, is that almost none of the infrastructure for carrying out federal elections is under the control of the federal government. In practice "cancel elections" looks something like "send the military/federal LEOs to arrest state officials." I am very skeptical there exist sufficient willing participants in those groups to be able to carry it out. I suspect any attempt to do so would make the George Floyd protests look extremely tame by comparison. To the extent there is a plan to fuck with the 2028 elections I expect it is to attempt Eastman's plan again and have Vance purport to unilaterally declare certain electors invalid.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6d ago
It is simply not true that the President can fire any government employee he wants in whatever manner he wants. There is a whole subchapter in the United States Code for statutes that prescribe procedures that need to be followed to fire people. Approximately none of which DOGE or Trump have followed.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7d ago
My understanding is the children of lower ranked diplomatic personnel are covered. Their children do get birthright citizenship. Here is a CIS article from 2024 complaining about the practice:
The differences between OFM’s blue list and white list are rooted in international practices and law, codified in the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular protections.
Under the Vienna conventions, “blue-list” diplomats, as direct representatives of their foreign governments, receive the highest privileges and immunities in the host country; in particular, they are shielded from arrest. “White-list” administrative staff and consular officials also enjoy considerable privileges and immunities, but have fewer arrest protections.
So, when it comes to matters of diplomat babies born in our country, State Department applies an expansive—and unjustified—interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s jus soli citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Thus, according to the State Department, blue-list babies, born in the U.S. to parents with greater privilege and immunities are not “subject to the jurisdiction,” of this country and therefore not automatically American citizens. But somehow white-list offspring, with comparatively less arrest protection, are “subject to the jurisdiction” and the babies are entitled to a U.S. passport.
Maybe it shouldn't work that way, the article I linked certainly argues in that direction, but it seems current practice is otherwise.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
So, what about the raid from extra-territorial natives?
What would it mean to be an "extra-territorial native" that was not covered under the exemption for Native Americans? What other group is being imagined here?
The way I think of it is that the US does have jurisdiction, but the criminal is the commanding goverment rather than him. In any case, if the existence of such a sphere were sufficient to deny jurisdiction, then officials with sovereign immunity would also be "not subject to jurisdiction".
I don't understand why they wouldn't both be criminals. I think pretty ordinarily if person X commits a crime on person Y's orders they are both criminals. I'm not sure what logic makes the foreign government a criminal and not the individual who committed the acts constituting the crime.
In any case, if the existence of such a sphere were sufficient to deny jurisdiction, then officials with sovereign immunity would also be "not subject to jurisdiction".
I think the people that literally constitute the sovereign whose jurisdiction we are discussing are under the jurisdiction of the sovereign they constitute.
Im not sure how often following families were net helpful vs something the command couldnt take away from soldiers, and dont think the outcome should depend on that. And what if some enemy civilians attempt to settle conquered land?
As you note above, invading armies likely has some meaning beyond the literal soldiers since children born to soldiers must be pretty uncommon. That comes directly out of Ark. I'm comfortable thinking of informal logistical support as being part of the "army" in that sense. I think enemy civilians would fall under the jurisdiction of the government being occupied.
In general, the tenor of this conversation is you attempting to draw a more complex and less obvious distinction, that will accommodate the invasion exception without excepting illegal immigrants. You havent found counterexamples to my relatively simple theory that accommodates it. This very much looks like you bending towards a desired conclusion.
I disagree. Invading armies, organized under the auspices of some government, seem to me quite different than a group of unrelated people not organized with each other or by any government. In relation to each other, to the country they are coming from, to the country they are going to. Treating them the same does not make any sense. In what sense are illegal immigrants an "army?"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
The question is, are they a foreign power, themselves (and the natives as per above)? In diplomacy, its well defined who is a state; in war not necessarily.
I think there's an obvious contemporary analogy with the 14th amendment: The Confederate States of America. Were those children born to confederates during the Civil War considered to be American citizens? As best I can find the answer to that is "yes." Children born to confederates were considered US citizens the same as any children born in the Union. This is pre-14th amendment but I doubt the authors of the amendment would have understood it to exclude the children of confederates. It seems to me it would be hard to argue CHAZ or Mexican cartels constitute a sufficiently foreign jurisdiction when the CSA was not.
But the way jurisdiction is used in the 14th, it has to apply to the person as a whole. The sovereign immunity of government officials is not a general relationship they have with the state, its something that applies when they wear their office hat. This is true of the soldiers as well; you cant just say "Well now that I need a binary result, Ill pick which hat to count as the "general relationship".".
I think this bolsters rather than undermines my point. In the case of the soldier or invading army there is arguably a sphere of action in which US courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute them for things which may otherwise be crimes. That being those actions undertaken as part of prosecuting the way pursuant to their governments directives. There is no similar sphere for illegal immigrants.
Also, there were no women soldiers at the time. They would not be acting in any kind of official capacity, but nonetheless fall under the invasion exception, because it is moot otherwise.
I do not think it is too much of a stretch to extend this aegis of foreign jurisdiction to foreign citizens providing logistical support ala camp followers.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
Answer in two parts.
First, there are some powers which Congress is probably not able to delegate to subordinate positions. I think if Congress tried to establish an agency to determine the budget for the federal government for the upcoming year without a vote in Congress that would be struck down. Similarly certain powers (like the power to pardon) are specific to the office of the President and he probably can't delegate those. If he wants to empower an agency to advise him on the use of the power that's probably fine but there are likely certain powers he can't just give to other entities.
Second current law suggests that many actions taken by DOGE would be unlawful even if those actions ultimately issued from the President himself. Decisions about firing certain employees or impounding funds are governed by Congressional statutes, not just the president's whims. So even if the President could delegate certain powers it's not clear he has the powers to do the things he would be delegating.
ETA:
I guess there's a third thing which is that Supreme Court interpretation of the appointments clause also limits the power the President can delegate without the safeguard of Senate confirmation, which is probably the one most relevant here.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
My impression from Wong Kim Ark is the Native American exemption is distinct from the invading army distinction, perhaps due to the weird way Native American tribes were considered sovereign while inside the territorial boundaries of the United States. As to Mexican cartels or CHAZ, I do not think there is plausibly any foreign power which they are acting as agents of so children of cartel members or CHAZ enforcers would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and have birthright citizenship thereby.
The US may also, even universal jurisdiction aside, prosecute soldiers for crimes unrelated to the war effort.
I think this is also consistent with US law and Supreme Court precedent, without negating the kind of relationship these individuals have. In Ex parte Young the Supreme Court ruled that sovereign immunity did not protect United States government officials from suits alleging they violated the constitution. The reasoning is that any unconstiutional action cannot be the action of the United States government (since the constitution would forbid that action) and so they cannot be acting as the government and enjoy the protection of that capacity, though they can in other capacities. By analogy when those foreign soldiers engage in actions unrelated to the orders of their sovereign they are acting in a capacity that does not enjoy concomitant protections from the laws of the United States, without negating the existence of that general relationship.
I understand that its a long post but I literally said so.
I did miss that sentence in your post. My apologies.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
I think a more straightforward distinction has to do with the relation between the non-citizen and the state. In the case of an invading army the soldiers effecting the invasion and occupation are acting in an official capacity as agents of a foreign government. I think that makes those soldiers more like ambassadors (in relation, though not purpose) than illegal immigrants more generally.
I'll also note that Trump's EO goes beyond illegal immigrants to include those lawfully present but without permanent resident status. So any theory of jurisdictional defect premised on illegal entry is still going to conclude a substantial part of Trump's order is unconstitutional, without more.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
According to some reporting DOGE employees are in control of all payments at USAID and denying disbursement of payments authorized by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. I am skeptical DOGE is going to be able to present any kind of communication from Trump authorizing any particular firing rather than purporting to give them discretion.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
They did not require senate confirmation and did not violate the Appointments clause. Part of the distinction about whether an officer is "inferior" or "principal" (and thus whether they require senate confirmation) turns on the authority they wield. If you want to create a purely advisory committee to figure out software best practices and help other government agencies bring their stuff up to date, no problem. If you want to create an entity that has the power to hire and fire people of different departments, order around other senate confirmed officials, cancel contracts, etc then you need senate confirmation.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
According to the New York Times Gleason didn't know the White House would be revealing her as administrator and was allegedly supposed to be on vacation today. I am skeptical Gleason is who Agency Heads actually consulted with regarding their DOGE employees but I guess we'll find out via various lawsuits.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
This is a weird reply. No one questions Trump's ability to create DOGE, only what powers the DOGE administrator can have. Did Obama's USDS administrator purport to be able to fire any government employee? Cancel federal government contracts? Impound congressionally appropriated funds? If Trump wants DOGE just to do the kind of thing previous USDS administrators have done that's fine, but clearly they want much more power. Power the constitution denies to officers not subject to senate confirmation.
Here's a question that seems like it should have a straightforward answer but apparently doesn't: Who is the Administrator of USDS and DOGE? The Executive Order renaming USDS and establishing DOGE reads, in relevant part:
(b) Establishment of a Temporary Organization. There shall be a USDS Administrator established in the Executive Office of the President who shall report to the White House Chief of Staff. There is further established within USDS, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization known as “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization”. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall be headed by the USDS Administrator and shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall terminate on July 4, 2026. The termination of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall not be interpreted to imply the termination, attenuation, or amendment of any other authority or provision of this order.
(c) DOGE Teams. In consultation with USDS, each Agency Head shall establish within their respective Agencies a DOGE Team of at least four employees, which may include Special Government Employees, hired or assigned within thirty days of the date of this Order. Agency Heads shall select the DOGE Team members in consultation with the USDS Administrator. Each DOGE Team will typically include one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney. Agency Heads shall ensure that DOGE Team Leads coordinate their work with USDS and advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President ‘s DOGE Agenda.
So USDS and the The DOGE Service Temporary Organization are headed by the same person and that person is the individual Agency Heads are supposed to work with to determine their DOGE Teams. There's been a bunch of reporting over the last few weeks about DOGE Teams arriving in various departments, so presumably this consultation has happened. Who was the consultation with? The obvious answer is "Elon Musk." Certainly everyone seems to assume he's in charge of DOGE. He (and Trump) talk like Musk is in charge of the effort. So much so that even Wikipedia lists Musk as the "Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency." Case closed, right? Well, not so fast says the United States government. According to a sworn declaration by Joshua Fisher (Director of the Office of Administration):
5. In his role as a Senior Advisor to the President, Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors. Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President's directives.
6. The U.S. DOGE Service is a component of the Executive Office of the President. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization is within the U.S. DOGE Service. Both are separate from the White House office. Mr. Musk is an employee in the White House office. He is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.
That declaration comes from a filing in State of New Mexico v. Musk, where a bunch of U.S. States are suing Musk and DOGE for allegedly exercising the powers of a principal officer of the United States without Senate confirmation in violation of the Appointments Clause. You can read the filings in that link if you care about the arguments (I think they have a pretty good case, given the actions attributed to DOGE) but I want to focus on a more basic question: If Elon Musk is not the DOGE Administrator, then who is? The answer seems to be: nobody knows! Actual USDS employees who pre-date Trump seem unable to get an answer about who is running their agency. This culminated yesterday in a hearing where a federal judge asked a DOJ lawyer point blank “Is there an administrator of DOGE at the present time?” and the response was "I don’t know the answer to that."
This is crazy right? The executive order is pretty clear that DOGE has to have an Administrator and that Administrator is responsible for working with Agency Heads to determine DOGE employees for each Agency. Are none of the DOGE employees embedded at various agencies actually DOGE employees? Has the actual DOGE organization done nothing? That's certainly not how people who seem to be involved talk about it! Either DOGE has an Administrator and someone knows who or, I guess, every action every DOGE employee has taken has been unlawful?
ETA:
Of course, right after I post this the White House says Amy Gleason is DOGE Administrator.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
I am skeptical. He's tweeting they are going to do another email and totally for real fire the people who don't respond this time!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
10d ago
I guess adding another layer here is that taking adverse action against people who did not respond to the email would probably be unlawful. There are laws that govern how agencies (including OPM) within the federal government are permitted to collect data or information about government employees. There's already a lawsuit about this particular system and whether it meets the requirements. In that case OPM filed a Privacy Impact Assessment which states, in relevant part:
GWES collects, maintains, and uses the names and government email addresses of federal government employees. GWES also collects and redistributes responses to emails sent to those addresses, which are limited to short, voluntary, non-identifying information. Specifically, GWES contains the following:
...
Employee Response Data: After an email is sent using Employee Contact Data, GWES collects, maintains, and redistributes short, voluntary responses.
...
4.2. What opportunities are available for individuals to consent to uses, decline to provide information, or opt out of the project?
The Employee Response Data is explicitly voluntary, The individual federal government employees can opt out simply by not responding to the email.
"Respond to this email or we'll take adverse action against you" is hardly voluntary. Forget about agency heads. The very entity apparently sending the email on Musk's behalf has to repudiate the consequences he described or, uh, admit they lied to a federal court?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
I don't see the contradiction. Some of the cuts (NIH indirect costs, firing thousands of employees) are real and likely to be devastating. Other cuts (a purported $8B DHS contact) are fake or wildly overstated. There is only a contradiction if one is talking about the same cut.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
Yes. I am very skeptical Darone experienced sexual arousal as part of their role play.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
I would probably remove such a person, if I intended my group to be trans-friendly. Though I am inclined to extend some grace to someone dealing with that kind of trauma.
Nothing in the OP mentions taxes at all, including getting rid of them for tariffs. In any case it is very unclear to me why tariffs are a better source of revenue than corporate income taxes are. The net change in corporate expenditures also seems quite ambiguous. If you are a company that does not do much importing then yes, sure, removing corporate taxes for tariffs may be a subsidy. But if you are a company that does a lot of importing tariffs may be even worse than a corporate income tax, in terms of your costs.
More options
Context Copy link