Agreed. I'd focus on the dozen or so folks who were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy.
That's a pretty solid case for High Crime.
As for order of impeachments? I'd do Biden first because that might actually have the votes, and the goal is to set the precedent that some Pardons can be considered High Crimes, even if the 'Presidential Act' is formally correct.
After that, as long as the opposition can avoid the big dramatic 'impeach the electorate' types of things and just stay focused on narrow aspects... sure, consider it staking a position for future use.
Once we're done talking about the EO's -- which have a 4-yr expiration date -- what do we think the One Legislative Push for his term will be?
Could be an Immigration Package that will be more Right than Left ... and will see a lot of Left crossover votes to just stop the bleeding.
But, and this is my genuine question, don't we kinda think he's going to do some sort of Tax/Finance bill that will benefit him and the Tech Sector? Surely extending the Trump Tax bill which was set to expire this year (which he assumed would be after his Presidency) plus whatever else his Libertarian, sorry Team Grey advisors want?
I know, right? And once you get over the shock of the thing and count the costs, you realize the cost is $0... what's Biden going to do, complain about being excluded from running for President again in 4-years? Hope Historians can save his reputation on the Presidential Ranking Chart?
We can all agree that one of the problems with Congress is that it is fundamentally driven by short-term tactical decision making - esp. at the individual level. That's a political reality that requires leadership to overcome for strategic objectives. Every political failing/weakness is an opportunity for some group that wants to take it.
None of this is relevant to a throw-away line I kinda wish I'd dropped.
It's not, I guess, an obvious point, so I'll make it obvious: the thing that's broken in the Republic isn't the Presidency, its the Congress.
The check on Presidents abusing their Pardon power isn't some DA in Biloxi, MS or even the SCOTUS, it's Congress impeaching the President for that abuse. That's the primary reason (secondary is political/comms) Presidents exercise their Dodgy Pardons on their last day... the way the Impeachment Process works in the Constitution requires (too long) a runway for Congress to react.
I'd recommend Dems draft *narrow and targeted* (if they are constitutionally able) articles of impeachment to signal that the improper use of the Pardon Power is a High Crime. Sure, it won't get the votes on Trump right now.
But, if you really want to do politics well (tm) Dems should draft articles of impeachment on Biden's pardons and see if they can bait Rs into impeaching Biden for the feels and (perhaps) opening up the pathway to SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of types of pardons -- plus proving you can impeach Presidents for Presidential Acts, even if they have left office.
Sometimes you eat an L (impeaching a DEM) to iterate a future W.
Trump pardoning the Silk Road guy is, I think, the direction his Administration is going. Team Grey social and economic policies... everything else yadda yadda evangelicals and Christian Nationalists - pure smoke screen.
On this one, part of me suspects that someone (I'm assuming Susie Wiles... btw, notice how everything hinges on Susie Wiles existing -- how long will that last?) said, um, for the tiniest shred of protection, let's just commute the sentence of the Seditious Conspiracy boys. At least they're still convicted felons then.
Ok, I can feel my anti-Trump non-Republican Solidarity party enjoyer calling balls and strikes credibility wearing off in the other thread... so here's one we can all condemn as plain old bad.
And, not just the usual 'dumb bad' but actual bad bad... triple bad bad bad for the people actually convicted of Sedition.
Sure We can agree that there are multiple categories of entrant seekers: Temp Visa Workers, Asylum, Immigrants, and lots of niche sub-categories. This is putting stress on a system that is already stressed to the point of broken.
My original point isn't that this solves everything (or anything), just that I think it will come across as more popular than people expect -- owing, in part, to how broken the immigration system is.
Like you, I prefer to grapple with the actual ideas and not simply spin-off into unreliable narratives based on team identity.
According the the EO, children born prior to the EO are subject to the broad interpretation and therefore citizens.
I think the issue with dreamers isn't that they were born here, it's that they were brought here as children and therefore occupy an ambiguous legal status that's made worse by the fact that their cultural country is the US -- so deporting them to their 'country of origin' introduces new issues.
This EO doesn't actually do anything for or against the dreamers... what we do with the dreamers would require something like the Dreamer Act.
Sure, the court could re-affirm the broad interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction' or it could correct itself and affirm a narrower interpretation.
I think it is higher probability that it knocks down an EO than an Immigration Act that clarifies the term.
I don't think the question of 'dual loyalties' or 'dual sovereign jurisdictions' will the fulcrum of the argument... it will be weather the act of ignoring the immigration laws puts one outside the jurisdiction for citizenship requirements -- even if one is still subject to the speed limit.
And, as I note above, it's best that proponents of the idea grapple with the 'edge' cases and put together an immigration policy via Congress.
I don't think it's recreating the same conditions.
At the baseline, if the Father is a citizen, then so is the child... if the Mother is a citizen, so is the child. It only obtains for the circumstances where neither mother nor father are citizens *and* they have entered the country illegally, or are here on temporary visiting visas. That will cover a lot of future folks, even if (especially if) there's no proper border interdiction.
The conditions for Slavery (and, say, the Turks in Germany) is that they were a class that had permanent status, but no real path to citizenship. As written, the EO allows for children of immigrants who have permanent status to become citizens.
I'm completely open to evaluating how it gets applied in practice... and, as I noted above, I don't think an idea like this should be an EO at all for the reasons you raise. It needs to be part of a complete immigration package.
Lastly, I agree that a functioning regime of interdiction, border management and immigration policies should be the goal.
Specifying how birthright citizen requires legal immigration is the correct rhetorical way to frame it... it doesn't end birthright citizenship, it clarifies how it applies through laws. It acts as both deterrent and incentive for a proper functioning immigration regime.
The reason why I say I can see this becoming more popular in the future is that it will likely be part of an overarching settlement.
Let me state that I don't think an EO is the right way necessarily to tackle this; but I think it is well within the realm of Law.
Congress should probably write a proper law defining a policy in line with a statutory interpretation of the amendment. SCOTUS would undoubtedly review and I could see it going either way.
But that's why I say I could see this becoming democratically popular and well within the law or, if needed an amended clarification.
If you apply for immigration and migrate, you can have a child born in the US who will be a US citizen.
It specifically calls out people who are illegally in the country, or clearly visiting and not immigrating legally.
I think you are overinterpreting a permanent Guest Worker underclass like Germany and the Turks... in fact *if* we had something like that it would be closer to the original interpretation of the 14th amendment as it applied to the newly freed slaves.
That would be a reasonable thing to guard against... but so is unregulated illegal immigration a thing to guard against.
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
Agreed. I'd focus on the dozen or so folks who were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy.
That's a pretty solid case for High Crime.
As for order of impeachments? I'd do Biden first because that might actually have the votes, and the goal is to set the precedent that some Pardons can be considered High Crimes, even if the 'Presidential Act' is formally correct.
After that, as long as the opposition can avoid the big dramatic 'impeach the electorate' types of things and just stay focused on narrow aspects... sure, consider it staking a position for future use.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
Once we're done talking about the EO's -- which have a 4-yr expiration date -- what do we think the One Legislative Push for his term will be?
Could be an Immigration Package that will be more Right than Left ... and will see a lot of Left crossover votes to just stop the bleeding.
But, and this is my genuine question, don't we kinda think he's going to do some sort of Tax/Finance bill that will benefit him and the Tech Sector? Surely extending the Trump Tax bill which was set to expire this year (which he assumed would be after his Presidency) plus whatever else his Libertarian, sorry Team Grey advisors want?
Where his heart lies, there his treasure.
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
I know, right? And once you get over the shock of the thing and count the costs, you realize the cost is $0... what's Biden going to do, complain about being excluded from running for President again in 4-years? Hope Historians can save his reputation on the Presidential Ranking Chart?
"
So you're saying only the GOP has agency?
We can all agree that one of the problems with Congress is that it is fundamentally driven by short-term tactical decision making - esp. at the individual level. That's a political reality that requires leadership to overcome for strategic objectives. Every political failing/weakness is an opportunity for some group that wants to take it.
"
None of this is relevant to a throw-away line I kinda wish I'd dropped.
It's not, I guess, an obvious point, so I'll make it obvious: the thing that's broken in the Republic isn't the Presidency, its the Congress.
The check on Presidents abusing their Pardon power isn't some DA in Biloxi, MS or even the SCOTUS, it's Congress impeaching the President for that abuse. That's the primary reason (secondary is political/comms) Presidents exercise their Dodgy Pardons on their last day... the way the Impeachment Process works in the Constitution requires (too long) a runway for Congress to react.
I'd recommend Dems draft *narrow and targeted* (if they are constitutionally able) articles of impeachment to signal that the improper use of the Pardon Power is a High Crime. Sure, it won't get the votes on Trump right now.
But, if you really want to do politics well (tm) Dems should draft articles of impeachment on Biden's pardons and see if they can bait Rs into impeaching Biden for the feels and (perhaps) opening up the pathway to SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of types of pardons -- plus proving you can impeach Presidents for Presidential Acts, even if they have left office.
Sometimes you eat an L (impeaching a DEM) to iterate a future W.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
There are a lot of things that are going to go down-hill because Trump is Trump.
What I'm watching for is what things, if any, go up in unexpected ways like Milei.
"
Heh, I was actually going to write that... but Chait beat me to it.
"
He blinked.
"
Good point. Truly, who among us can determine penumbras formed by emanations while not wearing the black robes of wisdom.
"
Heh, if you hated the Conservative Originalist Jurists, wait till you get the Conservative Living Constitution Jurists.
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
There are probably duelling Atlantic pieces upcoming about the significance of ending DEI on MLK day.
I'll probably agree with one of them.
"
Trump pardoning the Silk Road guy is, I think, the direction his Administration is going. Team Grey social and economic policies... everything else yadda yadda evangelicals and Christian Nationalists - pure smoke screen.
"
Nice, then we need a giant chain from Key West to Guantanamo ... just like Constantinople.
"
Yes, I was there.
On this one, part of me suspects that someone (I'm assuming Susie Wiles... btw, notice how everything hinges on Susie Wiles existing -- how long will that last?) said, um, for the tiniest shred of protection, let's just commute the sentence of the Seditious Conspiracy boys. At least they're still convicted felons then.
"
Ok, I can feel my anti-Trump non-Republican Solidarity party enjoyer calling balls and strikes credibility wearing off in the other thread... so here's one we can all condemn as plain old bad.
And, not just the usual 'dumb bad' but actual bad bad... triple bad bad bad for the people actually convicted of Sedition.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/
In a properly functioning Republic, we'd impeach him for this.
"
GMC hardest hit.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
I can see where you may want to rhetorically co-mingle it for dramatic effect. But it's a separate matter.
It's pretty simple that Dreamers who are *not* born in the US are not a problem solvable by birthright claims.
"
Heh, y'all are going to lose the public opinion battle sooo hard.
"
Sure We can agree that there are multiple categories of entrant seekers: Temp Visa Workers, Asylum, Immigrants, and lots of niche sub-categories. This is putting stress on a system that is already stressed to the point of broken.
My original point isn't that this solves everything (or anything), just that I think it will come across as more popular than people expect -- owing, in part, to how broken the immigration system is.
Like you, I prefer to grapple with the actual ideas and not simply spin-off into unreliable narratives based on team identity.
"
According the the EO, children born prior to the EO are subject to the broad interpretation and therefore citizens.
I think the issue with dreamers isn't that they were born here, it's that they were brought here as children and therefore occupy an ambiguous legal status that's made worse by the fact that their cultural country is the US -- so deporting them to their 'country of origin' introduces new issues.
This EO doesn't actually do anything for or against the dreamers... what we do with the dreamers would require something like the Dreamer Act.
"
Only 55%? Seriously, that's a jump ball on an issue that in my childhood didn't exist and would've seen 90% opposition.
I didn't say that is *was* popular, I said I can see it becoming popular -- and that poll suggests to me it's becoming popular.
"
Sure, the court could re-affirm the broad interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction' or it could correct itself and affirm a narrower interpretation.
I think it is higher probability that it knocks down an EO than an Immigration Act that clarifies the term.
I don't think the question of 'dual loyalties' or 'dual sovereign jurisdictions' will the fulcrum of the argument... it will be weather the act of ignoring the immigration laws puts one outside the jurisdiction for citizenship requirements -- even if one is still subject to the speed limit.
And, as I note above, it's best that proponents of the idea grapple with the 'edge' cases and put together an immigration policy via Congress.
"
I don't think it's recreating the same conditions.
At the baseline, if the Father is a citizen, then so is the child... if the Mother is a citizen, so is the child. It only obtains for the circumstances where neither mother nor father are citizens *and* they have entered the country illegally, or are here on temporary visiting visas. That will cover a lot of future folks, even if (especially if) there's no proper border interdiction.
The conditions for Slavery (and, say, the Turks in Germany) is that they were a class that had permanent status, but no real path to citizenship. As written, the EO allows for children of immigrants who have permanent status to become citizens.
I'm completely open to evaluating how it gets applied in practice... and, as I noted above, I don't think an idea like this should be an EO at all for the reasons you raise. It needs to be part of a complete immigration package.
Lastly, I agree that a functioning regime of interdiction, border management and immigration policies should be the goal.
Specifying how birthright citizen requires legal immigration is the correct rhetorical way to frame it... it doesn't end birthright citizenship, it clarifies how it applies through laws. It acts as both deterrent and incentive for a proper functioning immigration regime.
The reason why I say I can see this becoming more popular in the future is that it will likely be part of an overarching settlement.
"
Let me state that I don't think an EO is the right way necessarily to tackle this; but I think it is well within the realm of Law.
Congress should probably write a proper law defining a policy in line with a statutory interpretation of the amendment. SCOTUS would undoubtedly review and I could see it going either way.
But that's why I say I could see this becoming democratically popular and well within the law or, if needed an amended clarification.
"
Possible, but that's not how the EO reads.
If you apply for immigration and migrate, you can have a child born in the US who will be a US citizen.
It specifically calls out people who are illegally in the country, or clearly visiting and not immigrating legally.
I think you are overinterpreting a permanent Guest Worker underclass like Germany and the Turks... in fact *if* we had something like that it would be closer to the original interpretation of the 14th amendment as it applied to the newly freed slaves.
That would be a reasonable thing to guard against... but so is unregulated illegal immigration a thing to guard against.