by Summary:
About normalization. Donald Trump, who campaigned against Barack Obama's "government by executive order," now wants to use his own executive order to change the US Constitution as if that were "normal." I’m old enough to remember when we suddenly had a “national conversation” about torture. As soon as the idea of the legitimacy of torture had the slightest toehold in the national discourse, every staged “debate” was oriented toward extorting torture opponents into admitting that there were some circumstances where it was warranted. Hence the infamous “ticking time bomb” scenarios. You see, absolute opposition to torture was an extreme position that couldn’t possibly be right — the truth had to be “somewhere in the middle.” And when the American people repudiated Bush and the
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: constitutional law, US Constitution
This could be interesting, too:
About normalization. Donald Trump, who campaigned against Barack Obama's "government by executive order," now wants to use his own executive order to change the US Constitution as if that were "normal." I’m old enough to remember when we suddenly had a “national conversation” about torture. As soon as the idea of the legitimacy of torture had the slightest toehold in the national discourse, every staged “debate” was oriented toward extorting torture opponents into admitting that there were some circumstances where it was warranted. Hence the infamous “ticking time bomb” scenarios. You see, absolute opposition to torture was an extreme position that couldn’t possibly be right — the truth had to be “somewhere in the middle.” And when the American people repudiated Bush and the
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: constitutional law, US Constitution
This could be interesting, too:
Joel Eissenberg writes Just askin’ questions in Utah
Daniel Becker writes Does the pendulum swing back? Can it? Will it?
Daniel Becker writes Two Audio Interviews: Rethinking the Constitution and The New PhD
Mike Norman writes Brad DeLong — Abigail Adams (1776): “I long to hear that you have declared an independency…
About normalization. Donald Trump, who campaigned against Barack Obama's "government by executive order," now wants to use his own executive order to change the US Constitution as if that were "normal."
I’m old enough to remember when we suddenly had a “national conversation” about torture. As soon as the idea of the legitimacy of torture had the slightest toehold in the national discourse, every staged “debate” was oriented toward extorting torture opponents into admitting that there were some circumstances where it was warranted. Hence the infamous “ticking time bomb” scenarios. You see, absolute opposition to torture was an extreme position that couldn’t possibly be right — the truth had to be “somewhere in the middle.” And when the American people repudiated Bush and the Republicans to a degree unprecedented in the last forty years, Mr. Moderation himself decided that it was time to look forward and not backward and didn’t prosecute any of those well-intentioned patriots who let themselves get carried away and wound up doing a few regrettable things. And you have to admit, don’t you, that they kept us safe!I am much more concerned about normalizing the view that the President can change the US Constitution unilaterally by executive order. That would, in effect, be the end of the legitimacy of the constitutional and constitutional process, making it what the president says it is. If that is not dictatorship, I don't know what is.
And I’m worried the same thing will happen here — that birthright citizenship will be permanently damaged by the very existence of this sham debate between the constitutional status quo ante of the last century and a half and this new idea that just popped into Trump’s head, both of which are equally legitimate “sides” in the brilliant “debate” that the media will be so proud of themselves for covering so even-handedly.
Adam Kotsko
Be Careful About Relying On The Constitution
See also
Now, I do think that the birthright citizenship thing may be a stunt that won’t go anywhere. And I agree with those who say it’s a trap: Trump is trying to get us to debate the idea in order to legitimize it. Even if he can’t actually do it, by introducing the notion, he makes it more viable in people’s minds, thereby increasing the chances that it will someday happen. By entering into an argument about it, we give Trump exactly what he wants….Current Affairs
Be Careful About Relying On The Constitution
Nathan J. Robinson | Editor of Current Affairs
See also
U.S. senator [Lindsey Graham] says will offer bill to back Trump birthright citizenship planSee also
Reuters
Trump citizenship plan may not conflict with constitution: Pence
See also
Balkinization
The Invalidity of the Proposed Executive Order on Statutory Grounds
Gerard N. Magliocca | Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Also
Truthdig
Trump Falsely Claims Power to End Birthright Citizenship
Jacob Sugarman
See also
Lawfare
The Invisible Caravans
Stephanie Leutert | Director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the University of Texas at Austin