Uphold the Constitution of the United States - Don't Know

[Voluntarist]

Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'​

The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment says “no person” shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; it does not say that person must be a U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that noncitizens have certain basic rights. Trump has also said that while “we always have to obey the laws,” he would like to see some “homegrown criminals” sent to El Salvador as well, a proposal that was widely panned by legal experts.

When Welker tried to point out what the Fifth Amendment said, Trump suggested that such a process would slow him down too much.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are — some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

“I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he added.

“But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” Welker asked.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

The Supreme Court has already made it clear to the Trump administration in three different recent decisions that it has to allow basic due process rights for immigrants based on the long-standing understanding of the laws.

 

[acptulsa]

He must know they are getting basic due process, his press secretary does.

Conservatives think his job is to troll liberals, but that's just something he has to do before he's able to troll conservatives -- into trashing the BoR for no reason.

 

[PAF]

When the Bill of Rights are not taught/mentioned nearly enough, even the President of the United States of America doesn't know.

Maybe Trump and Ron Johnson should sign up for a class together.

 

[TheTexan]

14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law...

For citizens

 

[TheTexan]

Due process just means literally the amount of process which is owed.

So for illegals due process means 0 process because we don't owe them anything.

I'm happy to give them the process they are due. Which is 0

 

[nikcers]

Adversarial use of our legal system by foreign nationals is an injustice.

"iustitia suum cuique distribuit" , (justice renders to everyone his due)

Justice, is a constant and perpetual will to give each person what it is right to give him. His right is what is his, what he deserves, what is properly due to him.

Giving each person what they are entitled to, what they deserve, or what is owed to them is justice, where individuals receive what is appropriate or fair based on their actions, rights, or circumstances.

No alien enemy has a legal entitlement to be here and threaten the United States or the persons that are here. There are no circumstances where we should allow it and their actions of being an enemy make it necessary.

 

[wizardwatson]

Due process just means literally the amount of process which is owed.

So for illegals due process means 0 process because we don't owe them anything.

I'm happy to give them the process they are due. Which is 0

Only the immunities and privileges clause is referring to citizens, as there are specific immunities and privileges granted to citizens like voting.

It' also permissible for states to pass laws that require you to be a citizen like if for jury duty, or if for instance you require all public school teachers to be citizens.

Immunities is what protects you from state laws that might not be consistent. Here would be things like concealed carry laws across state lines, or maybe even marriage laws, if you are UNLIKE me and think the SCOTUS decisions in these matters isn't a violation of state sovereignty.

However, the facts are that the due process and equal protection clauses are definitely for non-citizens as well. I assume you are being obtuse because you simply disagree and wish this were not the case, but perhaps you are ignorant of the context and intent.

The government can't simply go up and confiscate your property cuz immigrants.

 

[TheTexan]

However, the facts are that the due process and equal protection clauses are definitely for non-citizens as well. I assume you are being obtuse because you simply disagree and wish this were not the case, but perhaps you are ignorant of the context and intent.

"Within its jurisdiction" <-- this does not apply to illegals

 

[wizardwatson]

"Within its jurisdiction" <-- this does not apply to illegals

Sorry, but an "illegal" is still a person. If they are in the U.S. any person is within the jurisdiction. Places legally controlled by the U.S. would also apply (terroritories, military bases, embassies, etc.)

If for instance, a non-citizen came into an embassy, you can't just rob them.

 

[nikcers]

Interpretation matters with the law. We had 50 years of liberal Interpretation on issues like abortion.

Now the political energy is with the conservatives.

I saw some historians were characterizing Trump's presidency as the most consequential first 100 days since FDR.

They said Trump is challenging the (liberal) world order and the (liberal) order here in the United States.

They were saying basically since World War 2 the liberals got to create reality and the conservatives were forced to live within the confines of the reality that which the liberals created.

All the liberals had to do was change reality and control reality whenever it suited them. If normal reality didn't suit their needs they would just create a new normal.

 

[TheTexan]

If they are in the U.S. any person is within the jurisdiction.

Many of the founders would have disagreed with that interpretation.

 

[acptulsa]

Many of the founders would have disagreed with that interpretation.

But you're arguing that they'd disagree with that definition, which I very much doubt. The jurisdiction is the place, not the perp.

 

[TheTexan]

But you're arguing that they'd disagree with that definition, which I very much doubt. The jurisdiction is the place, not the perp.

Jursidiction as being merely a place was disputed until at least 1898 in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

The dissenting judges made the case that "subject to the jurisdiction of" required that the person in mention not already be subject to a foreign power, amongst other things.

It's not as cut and dry as modern leftists would like to claim.

And to be honest, even if jurisdiction is "the place", as you say, the above dissenting rationale is plausible enough for me to be comfortable with using it as an excuse. As I've said before, I don't care how we do it, I just want them out

 

[acptulsa]

As I've said before, I don't care how we do it, I just want them out

Well, Trump's building and rebuilding prisons so we can pay to house and feed them while corporations use their slave labor to take our jobs. So, looks like you and I are SOL in that department.

 

[nikcers]

But you're arguing that they'd disagree with that definition, which I very much doubt. The jurisdiction is the place, not the perp.

Under all of the original interpretations of an alien enemy they wouldn't be considered subjects to our laws because foreign invaders are not subject to our laws even while on US soil or in our jurisdiction.

These arguments have been made and there is an original argument that argument is that there is a foreign occupation.

Many people consider this as the fact.

These distinctions were made by the founders during foreign occupations by the British in the revolutionary War and the war of 1812 in which the founders were alive.

 

[acptulsa]

These arguments have been made and there is an original argument that argument is that there is a foreign occupation.

How much are the taxpayers paying to enable this Cliché-O-Matic to set new records in the field of repetition?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of invasion.

Which this is.

 

[PAF]

Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of invasion.

Which this is.

Well, it's not. And I don't want it suspended. So there.

 

[wizardwatson]

Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'​

Guys, he really doesn't.

Maybe we're having a breakthrough. I think this might be the most honest thing he's ever said.

 

[PAF]

Guys, he really doesn't.

Maybe we're having a breakthrough. I think this might be the most honest thing he's ever said.

I agree, he really doesn't. But breakthrough??? He said he has attorneys. He's a businessman, after all. A crony one at that.