Trump Presidency

[jlehtone]

Panama's threat to blow up the canal would not be different from how Trump "makes deals", would it?

[burger1]

Not talking about threatening to do it but instead just do it. No threats required. If they did it correctly would cost trillions to fix, take years and would cost trade etc... Would also make US look bad and might prevent further invasions/conflicts.

And would be a defensive measure not an attack/invasion. Opposite of what the US is doing.

Canal is important to US military interests and relatively less important for shipping. Can just build your own train system in US like Mexico did if it's just for freight.

Climate change might make canal unusable at some point? They have already had issues.

[matthewfarmery]

But if there is military action, then things will go south REAL QUICK!!!

Will it though, really? Who's going to do a damned thing about it?

I doubt it'll happen, but then I also thought the exact same thing about the crud show that is the tariff outcome so far! But, seriously, and who will do what... exactly. The American people themselves have so far proved to be no more than a bunch of hand wringers, so it'll be up to everyone else instead. So, who is that going to be?

I was thinking of worse to come, if Trump gets his way here, and there is miliary action here, than he could use that as an excuse to invade other countries, like Greenland and Canada. Even if there is no intervention in the first case, there probably will be in the second and third case. It really depends on how far the military will go for this fascist dictator. So once Trump crosses this line, there is no way he can be pulled back. That is what I meant.

[matthewfarmery]

Well, Looks like the corrupt SC will hear the argument to get rid of birthright citizenship, considering its written in the 13 amendment.

Justices to Hear Case on Birthright Citizenship


“The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon requested responses from states and groups that have challenged the constitutionality of the president’s order ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents,” the New York Times reports.

“The move is a signal that the justices will consider a request by the Trump administration asking the court to lift a nationwide pause on the policy as the underlying court challenges proceed.”

So, if Trump wins this case, then the amendment is scrubbed from the history books, then Trump will have a clear signal he can scrub other stuff from the constitution. even distroy it. (but he is already close to that) I have a bad feeling that the SC will rule in favour of scrapping this.

[Observe]

I don't know constitutional law. I can see birthright being denied in the event that neither parent is a legal resident of the US. For example, it could be argued that just because a visitor on vacation gives birth while in the US, that child shouldn't automatically be given US citizenship. The parent must have some legal residency here prior. Obviously, if such a change is made, it will have to exclude those who already have been accorded birth right. You can't withdraw citizenship that has already been given.

[clakclak]

Donald Trump says media criticising him is illegal, he specifically names CNN and MSNBC in this case.

Speaking to prosecutors and law enforcement officers at the Department of Justice headquarters, Trump describes the media outlets as “political arms of the Democrat party. And in my opinion they’re really corrupt and they’re illegal. What they do is illegal.”

Coming from the president of the country that often likes to lecture others about freedom of speech.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_ ... m-illegal/

[Vertigo 7]

Well you don't have to know constitutional law to understand that the constitution can't be amended by SCOTUS or POTUS. It's the job of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution and the job of the President to execute it. Congress is the only body that can alter the constitution and only with a supermajority vote in both chambers as well as ratification required by 2/3rds of the states. Whatever the orange moron says, that doesn't make him right or legal. Infact, its usually the opposite.

[Observe]

@Vertigo 7: Thanks for the refresher on changing the constitution. Good to know it's very unlikely that Trump would succeed at this. Still, I suppose the SC could opinion that birth-right only applies to children born of a legal resident? That wouldn't be changing the constitution, just interpreting it. would that be possible?

[Vertigo 7]

Technically, they could, but that'd be a blatant and naked abuse of power, which I would absolutely expect from Alito and Thomas, likely Kavanaughty as well. The 14th amendment's language doesn't leave much if any room to be guessed at by anyone with integrity, especially supposed "constitutional originalists", as they have touted themselves to be

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, only children born to foreign ambassadors or heads of state which wouldn't be subject to US law wouldn't be granted US citizenship. All other children born in the US are citizens. The only real "got ya" they could pull is denying citizenship to children born in US territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., as they wouldn't have a State they would be a resident of and it uses the operator "AND" and could be used as a literal requirement. Anything else here would be extremely dishonest which is to be expected from the Orange one and those few justices.

[mr.WHO]

Question - is State in constitution is used solely as State (e.g. Texas) or as country as well (e.g. Federal level US)?

If I'd want to be particulary nasty, I'd interprete that the above mentioned section only ban States from depriving citizenship, not Federals.


Is there a possibility for US Federal goverment to strip person of cizitenship (e.g. due to terrorism)? I recall some countries do this, but not sure about US.

[matthewfarmery]

I would suspect if the SC does strip this amendment, then Trump will apply it to the whole country, and say its a victory. I don't think it will matter if its state law or not. Trump will be pleased once its gone.

But still, the fact that both the SC and POTUS can amend and strip the constitution should be an extreme worry.

[Vertigo 7]

@who

That refers to the individual states, not the federal government, IE you're born in Texas, you're a citizen of Texas and the US. But the states have no legal authority to disregard this section, or any, of the constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if it's in the US constitution, that supersedes any state law. IE it says "ALL... ARE citizens of the US and the State wherein they reside". I'm no English professor, but those are some pretty absolute sounding words to me.


Anyway, as far as stripping someone's citizenship, AFAIK the only way that can happen is if an immigrant lied on their citizenship application and was later discovered, which would mean only naturalized citizens could potentially have their citizenship revoked. There was some rumblings that Biden should have done this to Elon, accusing him of being here illegally on a student visa when he wasn't in school, or something along those lines a few months back. Of course, there wasn't any evidence that was put forward to prove that one way or the other. /shrug
But the short answer is no, you can't have citizenship revoked for committing crimes.

[fiksal]

I recall that the birth right citizenship exists due to colonists who were cementing their right to be on the new land. It absolutely have to be like this, to give citizenship to those born in the new world even if your parents were not.

[matthewfarmery]

So Trump has pushed America into another war. this time airstrike Houthi terrorists in Yemen

"Today, I have ordered the United States Military to launch decisive and powerful Military action against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen. They have waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against American, and other, ships, aircraft, and drones," he said.

Next he will likely target Iran. This is likely just the beginning.

where next I wonder? This idiot is just out of control.

[chew-ie]

Dafuq? Anybody saw that one coming?

Edit: apnews article about that strike: https://apnews.com/article/trump-yemen- ... 38a7b18afd

"Brave warfighters" attack with airstrikes.

[clakclak]

Dafuq? Anybody saw that one coming?

Edit: apnews article about that strike: https://apnews.com/article/trump-yemen- ... 38a7b18afd

"Brave warfighters" attack with airstrikes.

Yes, everyone saw that coming. It is absolutely nothing new.

[Observe]

So Trump has pushed America into another war. this time airstrike Houthi terrorists in Yemen

Huh? Trump is just doubling down on what Biden was already doing—hitting Houthi missile sites, drone launchers, whatever they’re using to mess with shipping or threaten U.S. assets. This goes back to at least 2015 when the Obama administration started supporting the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthi.

Why knee-jerk reaction everything is Trump's fault?

[chew-ie]

Dafuq? Anybody saw that one coming?

Edit: apnews article about that strike: https://apnews.com/article/trump-yemen- ... 38a7b18afd

"Brave warfighters" attack with airstrikes.

Yes, everyone saw that coming. It is absolutely nothing new.

It was really a serious question - as the current regime in the US abandons everything the US valued beforehand (their own people, africa, europe, NATO ...) - why would they now issue this attack?

[fiksal]

good, while US is busy, Canada can annex Minnesota and Vermont then

[mr.WHO]

- why would they now issue this attack?

Because it's low hanging fruit - as Observe mention, everyone and their grandmother were hit by and hit the Houtis in last years.
Due to them hurting imporant shipping lane, nobody will cry after them and their capabilities to hit back is limited (like Somali pirates decade erlier).

In short - good target for show of force, without risk of stirring the hornets nest.