DACA

[Speaker to Animals]

We're the real Danes.

[de officiis]

DACA was unilaterally ordered by President Obama after Congress refused to approve the program.

Some of us criticized the action as a circumvention of the legislative branch that undermined our system of the separation of powers. But because they liked the result, Democratic members yielded their institutional power to the White House and helped create an unchecked presidency. With Trump using the same authority to pursue his own policies, Democratic leaders now want to radically expand the powers of the judiciary to block an uber presidency of their own making. They have become constitutional short sellers who dump core principles as soon as they raise political costs.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced that they would challenge Trump’s decision in federal court. While they declined to give details of this extraordinary challenge, they would presumably be asking a court to say that Trump could not use the same power to rescind DACA that Obama used to create it. Since the power is the same, what remains is the merits of the policy, something courts have long avoided under the political question doctrine. They would have to say that undocumented individuals can be allowed to stay but not ordered to leave by executive order.

... Democrats want to oppose Trump, willing to yield power to the courts, as they did for the last eight years with regard to the executive branch. The constitutional short seller hopes that by dumping inconvenient principles, they will be able later to regain control of the system. The problem is that, unlike the markets, the constitutional system is not particularly elastic. Such changes can fundamentally alter our government.

The temptation to become a short seller is irresistible for politicians who often find it difficult to see beyond the next election. However, Schneiderman is the highest-ranking lawyer in the state of New York. Rather than articulate a constitutional principle that would negate Trump’s use of the same power used (with his support) by Obama, Schneiderman simply said, “President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program would be cruel, gratuitous and devastating to tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and I will sue to protect them.”

During the previous administration ... in one of the strangest demonstrations in history, Democrats rapturously applauded when Obama said that he would simply circumvent their branch because Congress did not yield to his demands for DACA and other measures.

From a constitutional perspective, it looked like a mosh pit of self-loathing members, politicians eager to be declared a functional non-entity in our tripartite (now bipartite) system. Unable to yield more authority to the executive branch, these politicians would now inflate the power of the courts to check a president. Imagine if a federal court gave Schneiderman what he wants. A federal judge could simply declare that an executive order is “gratuitous” or too “devastating” to be allowed. What would have been the reaction if a federal judge declared DACA to be gratuitous or cruel to those who are awaiting entry into the country legally? We would have uber judges to match our uber president.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/09/07/d ... t-sellers/

Yes, we are devolving--just in case you weren't sure of that.

[Okeefenokee]

DACA was unilaterally ordered by President Obama after Congress refused to approve the program.

Some of us criticized the action as a circumvention of the legislative branch that undermined our system of the separation of powers. But because they liked the result, Democratic members yielded their institutional power to the White House and helped create an unchecked presidency. With Trump using the same authority to pursue his own policies, Democratic leaders now want to radically expand the powers of the judiciary to block an uber presidency of their own making. They have become constitutional short sellers who dump core principles as soon as they raise political costs.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced that they would challenge Trump’s decision in federal court. While they declined to give details of this extraordinary challenge, they would presumably be asking a court to say that Trump could not use the same power to rescind DACA that Obama used to create it. Since the power is the same, what remains is the merits of the policy, something courts have long avoided under the political question doctrine. They would have to say that undocumented individuals can be allowed to stay but not ordered to leave by executive order.

... Democrats want to oppose Trump, willing to yield power to the courts, as they did for the last eight years with regard to the executive branch. The constitutional short seller hopes that by dumping inconvenient principles, they will be able later to regain control of the system. The problem is that, unlike the markets, the constitutional system is not particularly elastic. Such changes can fundamentally alter our government.

The temptation to become a short seller is irresistible for politicians who often find it difficult to see beyond the next election. However, Schneiderman is the highest-ranking lawyer in the state of New York. Rather than articulate a constitutional principle that would negate Trump’s use of the same power used (with his support) by Obama, Schneiderman simply said, “President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program would be cruel, gratuitous and devastating to tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and I will sue to protect them.”

During the previous administration ... in one of the strangest demonstrations in history, Democrats rapturously applauded when Obama said that he would simply circumvent their branch because Congress did not yield to his demands for DACA and other measures.

From a constitutional perspective, it looked like a mosh pit of self-loathing members, politicians eager to be declared a functional non-entity in our tripartite (now bipartite) system. Unable to yield more authority to the executive branch, these politicians would now inflate the power of the courts to check a president. Imagine if a federal court gave Schneiderman what he wants. A federal judge could simply declare that an executive order is “gratuitous” or too “devastating” to be allowed. What would have been the reaction if a federal judge declared DACA to be gratuitous or cruel to those who are awaiting entry into the country legally? We would have uber judges to match our uber president.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/09/07/d ... t-sellers/

Yes, we are devolving--just in case you weren't sure of that.

Use of, "mosh pit" gets five out of five gerrymandered thumbs up.

[clubgop]

DACA was unilaterally ordered by President Obama after Congress refused to approve the program.

Some of us criticized the action as a circumvention of the legislative branch that undermined our system of the separation of powers. But because they liked the result, Democratic members yielded their institutional power to the White House and helped create an unchecked presidency. With Trump using the same authority to pursue his own policies, Democratic leaders now want to radically expand the powers of the judiciary to block an uber presidency of their own making. They have become constitutional short sellers who dump core principles as soon as they raise political costs.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced that they would challenge Trump’s decision in federal court. While they declined to give details of this extraordinary challenge, they would presumably be asking a court to say that Trump could not use the same power to rescind DACA that Obama used to create it. Since the power is the same, what remains is the merits of the policy, something courts have long avoided under the political question doctrine. They would have to say that undocumented individuals can be allowed to stay but not ordered to leave by executive order.

... Democrats want to oppose Trump, willing to yield power to the courts, as they did for the last eight years with regard to the executive branch. The constitutional short seller hopes that by dumping inconvenient principles, they will be able later to regain control of the system. The problem is that, unlike the markets, the constitutional system is not particularly elastic. Such changes can fundamentally alter our government.

The temptation to become a short seller is irresistible for politicians who often find it difficult to see beyond the next election. However, Schneiderman is the highest-ranking lawyer in the state of New York. Rather than articulate a constitutional principle that would negate Trump’s use of the same power used (with his support) by Obama, Schneiderman simply said, “President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program would be cruel, gratuitous and devastating to tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and I will sue to protect them.”

During the previous administration ... in one of the strangest demonstrations in history, Democrats rapturously applauded when Obama said that he would simply circumvent their branch because Congress did not yield to his demands for DACA and other measures.

From a constitutional perspective, it looked like a mosh pit of self-loathing members, politicians eager to be declared a functional non-entity in our tripartite (now bipartite) system. Unable to yield more authority to the executive branch, these politicians would now inflate the power of the courts to check a president. Imagine if a federal court gave Schneiderman what he wants. A federal judge could simply declare that an executive order is “gratuitous” or too “devastating” to be allowed. What would have been the reaction if a federal judge declared DACA to be gratuitous or cruel to those who are awaiting entry into the country legally? We would have uber judges to match our uber president.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/09/07/d ... t-sellers/

Yes, we are devolving--just in case you weren't sure of that.

Yes. and Turley isn't exactly a conservative either. But will liberals snap out of their shit and see it?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Borders are fake, arbitrary lines, but that doesn't mean that states don't have the authority to make decisions about them. I don't really understand why people have a hard time holding those two axioms in their brain at the same time, but they do.

If they were truly "fake and arbitrary", they'd not be recognized by any foreign states and their authority would be considered illegitimate. Most borders are recognized. Where there are exceptions, there is usually war or some form of tension. So, no,...borders are subject to negotiation, formalization and international legal recognization. The very opposite of "fake". Nor do they shift simply according to whim, so nor are they arbitrary. Maybe you meant they were "social constructs"? Like, you know, law or the very concept of government itself.

That is precisely what I meant. Their reality is derived by consensus. They can shift by consensus, a whimsical process indeed.

If you ask me, "social construct" is just an occult term for "fake and arbitrary," but we can use whatever term you like... language being a social construct and all.

[C-Mag]

It's bein floated that a deal would be struck and we'd get DACA approved and a wall.

How would ghat sit?

[BjornP]

Borders are fake, arbitrary lines, but that doesn't mean that states don't have the authority to make decisions about them. I don't really understand why people have a hard time holding those two axioms in their brain at the same time, but they do.

If they were truly "fake and arbitrary", they'd not be recognized by any foreign states and their authority would be considered illegitimate. Most borders are recognized. Where there are exceptions, there is usually war or some form of tension. So, no,...borders are subject to negotiation, formalization and international legal recognization. The very opposite of "fake". Nor do they shift simply according to whim, so nor are they arbitrary. Maybe you meant they were "social constructs"? Like, you know, law or the very concept of government itself.

That is precisely what I meant. Their reality is derived by consensus. They can shift by consensus, a whimsical process indeed.

If you ask me, "social construct" is just an occult term for "fake and arbitrary," but we can use whatever term you like... language being a social construct and all.

Consensus is..."whimsical"?



Social construct does not mean "fake and arbitrary". To call something "fake" implies that something else is real, and to call something arbitrary is to imply that something else is reasonable. If that's what you take away from that term, I think you should look it up along with the meaning of arbitrary and fake. That something is socially constructed does not make it "fake" nor arbitrary". Your constitution and all the values represented therein is a social construct written down on paper. Doesn't make them any less real. Law is a social construct, but is your entire legal system based simply on the capricious whims of its judges, lawyes and jurors? Friendship's are social constructs, but are your friends "fake"? Aside from its biological sense, a family is also a social construct... is a family "fake"? Arbitrary? Are you in any sort of relationship with another person? Is that, your feelings for them and theirs for you, "fake" or "arbitrary"? You get where I'm going with this, I think.

It's not so much about the term, HM, it's about what you associate with things in society that are created through social interactions, like the legal and philosophical basis for your country's values and rights, but also other such social constructs like the borders that those values exist within. If you want to dismiss borders, then dismiss borders, but your reasons for doing so ought to be consistent with your other beliefs.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It's bein floated that a deal would be struck and we'd get DACA approved and a wall.

How would ghat sit?

People with much more expertise in security than I have argued that the wall would not be all that great at protecting the border, so I would rather see the public resources spent on other security and infrastructure projects.

But deal making is how our country lurches along, and even if the wall is a bit silly, it isn't particularly offensive to me, at least.

The Keynesians will be thrilled.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If they were truly "fake and arbitrary", they'd not be recognized by any foreign states and their authority would be considered illegitimate. Most borders are recognized. Where there are exceptions, there is usually war or some form of tension. So, no,...borders are subject to negotiation, formalization and international legal recognization. The very opposite of "fake". Nor do they shift simply according to whim, so nor are they arbitrary. Maybe you meant they were "social constructs"? Like, you know, law or the very concept of government itself.

That is precisely what I meant. Their reality is derived by consensus. They can shift by consensus, a whimsical process indeed.

If you ask me, "social construct" is just an occult term for "fake and arbitrary," but we can use whatever term you like... language being a social construct and all.

Consensus is..."whimsical"?



Social construct does not mean "fake and arbitrary". To call something "fake" implies that something else is real, and to call something arbitrary is to imply that something else is reasonable. If that's what you take away from that term, I think you should look it up along with the meaning of arbitrary and fake. That something is socially constructed does not make it "fake" nor arbitrary". Your constitution and all the values represented therein is a social construct written down on paper. Doesn't make them any less real. Law is a social construct, but is your entire legal system based simply on the capricious whims of its judges, lawyes and jurors? Friendship's are social constructs, but are your friends "fake"? Aside from its biological sense, a family is also a social construct... is a family "fake"? Arbitrary? Are you in any sort of relationship with another person? Is that, your feelings for them and theirs for you, "fake" or "arbitrary"? You get where I'm going with this, I think.

It's not so much about the term, HM, it's about what you associate with things in society that are created through social interactions, like the legal and philosophical basis for your country's values and rights, but also other such social constructs like the borders that those values exist within. If you want to dismiss borders, then dismiss borders, but your reasons for doing so ought to be consistent with your other beliefs.

I think you are getting hung up on the word fake. I used it simply to make the distinction between conceptually 'real' and physically 'real.' I could have well used 'imaginary,' which would have been more accurate, but less concise.

As to the whimsical nature of consensus building... well, it isn't always particularly well thought out or rational is it? Often consensus is built along the most expedient path, not the most rational one. Many important civil processes move forward with quite a lot less rationality than you or I might like, in fact, but that doesn't make them valueless.

Laws, for instance, can be irrational and arbitrary, but rule of law is important, which is why it is important to have a process for assessing and changing laws.

To really discuss the reality of socially constructed concepts would require a massive derailment of this thread into theory of knowledge and the like. So the quick version is: I am not really disagreeing with you, but theory of knowledge is just academic black magic that uses a bunch of nerd-words instead of drugs, listening to rock and roll, and worshiping the devil; which will get you to basically the same insights.

[Speaker to Animals]

Borders are imaginary, everybody. Just raise your wife's children and accept your soft genocide.