Patterico's Pontifications

8/20/2015

HuffPo Legal Affairs Writer: Amending the Constitution Is Unconstitutional

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:55 pm



Cristian Farias at HuffPo:

Key figures in the crowded Republican field have spoken loud and clear about their desire to do away with birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.

Donald Trump went a step further Tuesday when he said in a CNN interview that children born to immigrants under the present constitutional order “do not have American citizenship.”

In other words, the citizenship they were born with is invalid, a notion Trump said he’d be willing to “test out” in a court of law.

But one needs not go that far.

It turns out that the very idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — would probably be found unconstitutional.

That’s right. This guy thinks amending the Constitution is unconstitutional. He thinks that a 28th Amendment outlawing birthright citizenship would violate . . . the 14th Amendment.

One wonders if he thinks the Amendment undoing Prohibition was unconstitutional, because it violated the Amendment instituting Prohibition.

In case you’re wondering whether Constitutional amendments could ever be unconstitutional, feel free to read Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Since we’re past 1808, and removing birthright citizenship would not deprive a state of equal suffrage in the Senate, a birthright amendment could be passed.

Note well: This guy is not some random twit stopped by Jimmy Kimmel on Hollywood Boulevard. He is the “Legal Affairs Writer” for the Huffington Post.

Trust your media.

73 Responses to “HuffPo Legal Affairs Writer: Amending the Constitution Is Unconstitutional”

  1. Weep for your country.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. Do you think an amendment ordering the immediate execution of all left-handed people, irrespective of citizenship, would be constitutional?

    In other words, are their no limits on amendments at all, other than the good will of the people?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  3. I weep for my children.

    Timothy Cataldo (2182b6)

  4. I have grave problems, as you might guess, with an amendment that strips people of their citizenship through no act of their own. Is such a thing unconstitutional? No, otherwise we have a nasty problem passing amendments that do less. Is it beyond the pale? I would hope so.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. What would Justice Kennedy do?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. For different reasons, I agree that any Article V amendments would be rejected by the ruling elites, and SCOTUS, specifically. They’ll cite some procedural flaw to justify it.

    It would be no shock to see the courts reject the plain meaning of a new amendment of any kind, as well. An amendment banning abortion except to save the life of the mother would be vitiated by interpreting a “life in jeopardy” as the inconvenience of a hangnail.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  7. Kevin, you’ve jumped the shark. Congrats.

    If it passes the legal requirements to become an amendment to the Constitution, then it is by definition constitutional.

    Would there be a war fought before you ever got to the point of killing all lefties… of course.

    And we are better shots than you righties.

    njrob (a6a2ed)

  8. Ed,

    They consider pregnancy to be a disease and harmful to the life of the mother. No other reason needed.

    Just remember Obama and the burden of having a child when he spoke of his own.

    njrob (a6a2ed)

  9. Indeed. A fetus is a parasite.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  10. I’ve seen this a couple of times in non-constitutional law in this country (New Zealand).

    You propose to change a law, and someone on the left claims it goes against the spirit of said law. It’s basically a variation of the “wrong site of history” stupidity for situations where the public has swung (Unexpectedly!!) against that position that was supposed to be so historic and forward-looking.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  11. You do not need to pass a Constitutional amendment re “anchor babies.” Old legal precept of de minimus should apply. The child born in the United States is an American citizen but his family are not. No problem, if the family so wishes, they can leave the child in the United States with legal residents or take the child to their country of origin and let the child decide whether, on reaching majority, to claim American citizenship.

    Michael Keohane (6e4b6f)

  12. njrob,

    The shark has been fully jumped already once we start talking about tossing people, born here, out of the country because of their ANCESTRY.

    We may be able to bar people born here in the future from becoming citizens, particularly if they don’t also grow up here, but telling someone who has legally been a citizen for 25 years that they have to get out? Thankfully, this will never happen as it assumes 38 simultaneous shark jumps.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Do you think an amendment ordering the immediate execution of all left-handed people, irrespective of citizenship, would be constitutional?

    In other words, are their no limits on amendments at all, other than the good will of the people?

    The limits are those set forth in Article V.

    If an amendment to execute all left-handed people passes the requirements of Article V, we have a bigger problem than judges sitting around deciding whether that is Constitutional.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  14. We may be able to bar people born here in the future from becoming citizens, particularly if they don’t also grow up here, but telling someone who has legally been a citizen for 25 years that they have to get out? Thankfully, this will never happen as it assumes 38 simultaneous shark jumps.

    I think realistically we would have to declare it going forward.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  15. “We may be able to bar people born here in the future from becoming citizens, particularly if they don’t also grow up here, but telling someone who has legally been a citizen for 25 years that they have to get out?”

    Sorry, but I must have missed that part. There’s a difference between refusing someone citizenship, and not allowing them to stay as a permanent resident.

    I would point to Singapore’s law where if you’re born there you have the right to stay until you leave. Had a friend from the UK who was living there for a while and told me about it.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  16. There is a reason that blood has been considered important from the beginning of civilization and why family, your name, counts. It makes up your kinship, your citizenship, your identity.

    In this delusional day of claiming what you identify as is who you are, it’s no surprise that there are those who think your allegiance isn’t based on family ties, but on what ground you happened to occupy when you came into being.

    Someone who is subject to foreign laws cannot be subject to our own without willfully renouncing the former. It’s why dual-citizenship is nonsense. You cannot have divided loyalties. It’s also why illegals claiming their children are magically American is nonsense. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country, their own family. Not ours.

    njrob (a6a2ed)

  17. “All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.” — Pat Paulsen

    “The biggest problem facing the GOP today is a shortage of angry old white guys.” — nk

    nk (dbc370)

  18. I have grave problems, as you might guess, with an amendment that strips people of their citizenship through no act of their own.

    I think there is a pretty good argument that the 14th Amendment does not do what the present practice is. It would require a USSC decision, then an Amendment if the USSC ruled against the ban on “Anchor Babies.”

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  19. The biggest problem facing the GOP today is a shortage of backbone.

    ropelight (6dce3e)

  20. The clearest and unambiguous interpretation of jurisdiction is one that preserves national sovereignty. The Constitution names two parties to its contract: “We the People” (i.e. citizens) and “our Posterity” (from conception). Despite the Supreme Court’s decision to excise the second party through a pro-choice or selective interpretation, the contract establishes that citizenship is is only conferred through two paths: inheritance or naturalization.

    That said, while The Constitution can be amended, it recognizes neither the right to indiscriminate killing (i.e. abortion) nor the grant of constitutional rights and obligations to aliens (e.g. immigrants, visitors, diplomats and their children). The first is a violation of The Constitution and human rights. While the latter is a violation of American sovereignty and Americans’ civil rights.

    n.n (b378dc)

  21. If you’re saying the 14th amendment grants automatic citizenship to babies born in the USA you’re flat out wrong. Period.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/levin-cruz-trump-sessions-are-right-14th-amendment-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

    Jack (ff1ca8)

  22. I would point to Singapore’s law where if you’re born there you have the right to stay until you leave.

    Fine, I’ll go with that. But their illegal parents gotta go. If you think the kid has a right to stay, you support him. I await the sound of your wallet opening.

    BTW, how does someone just born in Singapore voice his “right” to stay (until he leaves)? Exactly what other rights does a newborn possess in Singapore? I Figure if he can decide where he lives can he vote? Buy a gun? Start a church? Drive a car?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  23. If everybody died and left “talk radio host and author of ‘Plunder and Deceit’ Mark Levin” in charge.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. This is a trial balloon designed to mitigate against the idea of a new administration exerting it’s power over immigration.

    Whether citizens of China or India or Mexico can come to our country, then be given citizenship, is a foreign policy matter.

    The ability to set foreign policy, make treaties with other countries, is the power of the Presidency, with the consent of the Senate.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  25. They being the Huff Po hate Americans first lobby want to set the terms of the discussion.

    So that the Next President is bogged down chasing a next to impossible constitutional amendment instead of concentrating on the things they can do.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  26. That being the Huff Po hate american first lobby…

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  27. Nope. Immigration and naturalization are enumerated powers of Congress. The President might have the authority to issue letters of credence to foreign diplomats on his own.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. Where do they get these HuffPo writers?

    C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc)

  29. The biggest problem with the GOP is The Chamber of Commerce.

    mg (31009b)

  30. 28.Where do they get these HuffPo writers?

    Either Harvard or Pyongyang. Someplace overflowing with communists.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  31. Rutgers and city university law school, rhetorical.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  32. He’s been a member of every Soros allied lobby I can think of

    narciso (ee1f88)

  33. Nobody is that boneheadedly obtuse without there being an ulterior motive.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  34. So, what is the classification of We the People’s Posterity born abroad under the popular, but ambiguous and exception-ridden (read: selective) interpretation of natural born and constitutional jurisdiction?

    There are dark desires and progressive corruption hidden in spontaneous penumbras that defy reasoning with internally, externally, and mutually consistent logic.

    n.n (b378dc)

  35. One wonders if he thinks the Amendment undoing Prohibition was unconstitutional, because it violated the Amendment instituting Prohibition.

    Quite unlikely Junior Gee-Whiz Legal Writer is even aware of the 18th and 21st Amendments. All he/she/it knows is they really do like their Pabst Blue Ribbon or Corona or what ever other weak-kneed beer the smart set currently finds fashionable.

    Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be looking to Cristian for good quality, heads-up legal writing anytime soon.

    Bill H (2a858c)

  36. But of course!

    Hippy’s infested by bugs at Burning Man

    Surprisingly not fleas. Some other unnamed flying nasty.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. Do you think an amendment ordering the immediate execution of all left-handed people, irrespective of citizenship, would be constitutional?

    In other words, are their no limits on amendments at all, other than the good will of the people?

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/20/2015 @ 3:01 pm

    It seems “progressive” monsters don’t feel an amendment is required when Congress and the courts permit, defend and fund, with tax dollars, the “immediate execution” of 1.5 million people every year, most of whom would be by most definitions “natural born citizens”. These “progressive” monsters seem to believe that is constitutional.

    We seem to be confused by what requires an amendment or not. Are there no limits on the depravity of these “progressive” monsters? Is there no line they will cross where good, decent, law-abiding American citizens simply say, “enough is enough”….

    WarEagle82 (44dbd0)

  38. this is what I was referring to last night,

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/cristianafarias

    narciso (ee1f88)

  39. “This guy thinks amending the Constitution is unconstitutional”

    He probably got the idea from Ginsburg Stevens – after all, they do it all the time.

    Joe from Texas (debac0)

  40. Do you think an amendment ordering the immediate execution of all left-handed people, irrespective of citizenship, would be constitutional?

    In other words, are their no limits on amendments at all, other than the good will of the people?

    Yes.

    Follow up question: if there were such a clear and unambiguous Constitutional Amendment, which justices on the Supreme Court would put aside their personal political views (against the Amendment) to uphold the act, and which justices would bow to political pressure?

    I think the answer is obvious.

    egd (1ad898)

  41. He’s since then updated the article. He now says that federal courts have never found a later amendment to be unconstitutional due to an earlier amendment, but that they might do so in this case.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  42. Incidentally the Constitution did explicitly allow slavery, and stripping people of citizenship is much less bad than that. Just saying.

    Since birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the 14th amendment, this discussion is just an attempt to steal the bases. Get everyone on board saying birthright citizenship is obviously in the Constitution and hope that the judges rule that since everybody believes it that’s what it says.

    The same reasoning was used to declare the execution of minors and people with low IQs unconstitutional.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  43. In my limited understanding, I thought a federal constitutional amendment was by definition the final law of the land and could not be overturned, but “merely interpreted” in application by the SCOTUS,
    which is why the process for making an Amendment is a very high bar to meet.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  44. this interpretation of the amendment only came into being with a footnote in Plyer vs. Doe in 1982,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  45. But what about the auras of the penumbras of the chakras in the living breathing constitution, hmmm? What about that? Just because it does or doesn’t say it does or doesn’t mean it is or isn’t in there. Sincerely yours, Anthony Kennedy

    Mike S. (f5d617)

  46. You write as if the Constitution were simply words written on a piece of paper, whereas all right-thinking, erg correct-thinking-which-excludes-the-right, people know that the Constitution consists of the rights found in emanations hiding in the shadows of penumbras by correct-thinking judges.

    max (4fdf98)

  47. “This guy is not some random twit stopped by Jimmy Kimmel on Hollywood Boulevard. He is the “Legal Affairs Writer” for the Huffington Post.”

    Based on the evidence I’m thinking he could very well be both.

    Mark Johnson (61d0de)

  48. Do you think an amendment ordering the immediate execution of all left-handed people, irrespective of citizenship, would be constitutional?

    In other words, are their no limits on amendments at all, other than the good will of the people?

    By definition, it would be constitutional.

    Michael Ejercito (d74b61)

  49. Incidentally the Constitution did explicitly allow slavery,

    It still does allow it, it is just more restricted now.

    JNorth (5fe1bf)

  50. I thought a federal constitutional amendment was by definition the final law of the land and could not be overturned, but “merely interpreted” in application by the SCOTUS,

    See, that’s where they get us every time. Why does or why should anything in the Constitution need to be “interpreted”? Is it written in Russian? No, English. Do words have definitions? Yes, look them up. The judges job should be to determine if the law in question meets Constitutional muster not to “interpret” the Constitution so it allows said law.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  51. I’m beginning to think the only people who understand neither the law nor the Constitution have a JD after their name. And they spend their entire careers trying to bastardize both.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  52. Present company excepted.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  53. It would not be unconstitutional, but a implementation of such an amendment would need to mesh with other parts of the Constitution, such as due process, the ban on ex post facto laws, etc.
    So making it explicitly prospective, so that it only applied to children born after a certain date,that would be linked to final ratification, would probably be necessary. See Patterico@14.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  54. One of those lone wolves took some shots on a train from Amsterdam to Paris.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  55. I once wondered how silly people attain a voice that might influence other silly people. If you think about it though, it is not a mystery.

    The people who make this country run, the people who matter, do things and make things. A farmer sows a field. A machinist makes a screw. A teacher educates children. An engineer designs a bridge. An artist elevates our thinking. Science helps us enjoy a better life. A pastor leads a flock. A mother begins a new life. A doctor makes us well when we are sick or, at least, tries. A parent makes these things happen again and again. An undertaker buries the dead.

    Writers on the Huffington Post write for the Huffington Post. I find it difficult to imagine how what they write improves my life. However, it is what they do for a living, so God bless them.

    I heard a caller on Rush today. She said that liberalism is what stupid people think is smart.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  56. Well they spread their garbage all through yahoo and the twitters, taking advantage of the inattentive

    narciso (ee1f88)

  57. Why tilt at windmills when we could solve most of the problems without an Amendment?

    Not by trying wildly fallacious theories of interpretation of “birthright” or “natural born citizen” as some seem to want. The biggest problems are security in entering and family chain immigration. Tighten the border, tract visas (we’re the only major country that doesn’t, 40% of illegals came legally and overstayed visas), and e-Verify to cut down employment fraud. With entry controlled, there will be far fewer “birthright” births to illegals.

    Family chain is statutory, part of the Kennedy reforms over 40 years ago that ended national quotas, requirements for sponsorship/self-support (five years with no public benefits), and allows extended families to join an “anchor baby.” A bill could end all that – IF we have a President who would sign it. The “anchor baby” problem isn’t birthright since that only applies to the baby himself.

    Estragon (ada867)

  58. Because those things are doable is the reason why they will not be done, Estragon. The lying liars will just keep lying about “birthright citizenship” to placate the idiots. They want the cheap surplus labor.

    nk (dbc370)

  59. Most of the commentary I’m reading on this issue completely misses the Section 5 point. Consider:

    * Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution creates — but then after laying down a few bright-line and specific rules, gives the Congress authority to further define — the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

    * Congress likewise has the power to define the geographic boundaries of the United States. Congress has the power to control the borders thereof, a vastly broader power, in fact, than it has to act within those borders (our federal government being one of defined and limited powers).

    * Congress legislates every other aspect of citizenship — how it can be granted via naturalization, how it can be voluntarily renounced, or forfeited and revoked — through legislation.

    * And finally, by far most significantly, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly envisions an ongoing, dynamic role for Congress in enforcing the substantive provisions of the amendment.

    I share our host’s suspicion of attempts to divine legislative intent from legislative history, and I’m quite sure that despite some dicta, mostly in footnotes, the SCOTUS has never yet made a definitive ruling on birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    So I’m less interested in arguing the current status of the law regarding birthright citizenship than I am in demonstrating that Congress has the constitutional power and authority, via legislation (signed by the Executive or passed by appropriate margins in both chambers over his veto), to RE-DEFINE our current practices on birthright citizenship.

    We’re approaching an election season in which our national immigration and citizenship policies and practices are under intense public scrutiny and debate. That’s healthy in the long- and even the middle-term, even though it’s provoking heated argument right now even within each of the two major political parties; from that crucible can come politically legitimate and well-informed decisions on policy, and perhaps ultimately, eventually, political consensus.

    Recognizing Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment through legislation either confirming, modifying, limiting, or doing away altogether with birthright citizenship makes this election more consequential: We don’t need a constitutional amendment to resolve this dispute, but we do need either (a) a Congress and President who will agree on legislation to resolve the dispute, or (b) a Congress, both of whose chambers will resolve it with legislation that can be passed into law even over the President’s veto.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  60. What if I’m wrong? What if — I’m spectacularly unconvinced of this yet by anything I’ve read from any constitutional scholar or any prior cases, but what if — the Fourteenth Amendment, properly construed, strips Congress from any role in defining the limits of birthright citizenship?

    If so, then we would in fact need a constitutional amendment to change the current practice and policy of recognizing birthright citizenship of children born to illegal aliens within the territorial jurisdiction United States.

    But the only way of teeing up that issue for the SCOTUS — the only way to get a definitive, precedential, principled ruling on that issue — is for Congress to first attempt, via legislation, to re-define our current practice and policy.

    Start by electing a Congress and a President who are willing to pass that legislation. Then — and only then — can the SCOTUS confirm or discredit the constitutionality of that legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  61. Excellent analysis, Beldar. I would like to see this issue get more attention and not swept under the rug, as is common with the leaders of both Parties when it comes to important issues. I don’t think any of this would have happened if not for Trump.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  62. If we only did what Estragon said in his comment #57, we would not need to do anything more. But “we” will not do it. Because the Wall Street bloodsuckers who buy and own our politicians, including the next President whoever he or she might turn out to be, cannot outsource all their labor needs to China for $2.00 a day like they did with manufacturing. They still need the cheapest possible labor pool for the onsite work in the United States. Unskilled, uneducated, living hand to mouth, living in the shadows, always in fear of arrest and deportation if they become too troublesome. While the rest of “us”, who should be fighting to have a vibrant producing economy, like we had in the ’60s, with more jobs than we have people to fill them, play with our iPhones and play along with the bosses, believing their lies and scapegoating the illegals.

    Thanks, Republicans.

    Yes, I know. I am against “free markets” and against “free trade” and a socialist and a communist.

    nk (dbc370)

  63. DRJ, I don’t agree with you that this wouldn’t have happened if not for Trump.

    He keeps saying that he is the only one who’s been talking about immigration. That’s one of his most obvious lies.

    We were talking about immigration policies on this blog for the past several years. You could find it as a subject of discussion among would-be candidates, among talking heads, in newspaper headlines — everywhere — long before Trump started bloviating.

    It is his signature issue. But it’s something — one of many things — about which large segments of the American public were highly exercised, and in which they were very involved in debating, long before Trump started his crusade.

    He’s got the con man’s gift of figuring out what people need as their motivation to lead them to ignore their better judgment and go along with the con.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  64. ^^^ That’s also exactly what he’s doing when he insists that he can’t be bought, and that he can end crony capitalism.

    At the very same time, he’s bragging about how much money he’s made. We’re supposed to believe he doesn’t want more?

    At the same time, he’s bragging about the politicians he’s paid off. We’re supposed to believe he’s a man of principle?

    Our better judgment would tell us that no matter how angry we are at crony capitalists and influence buyers, a master of those arts is not who we need to put a stop to them. Our better judgment would tell us that no matter how much money Donald Trump has made by conning people so far, he’s not going to stop wanting more money. (He might eventually get to the $10B net worth he ridiculously claims for himself; he’s certainly been willing to wash and rinse tons of American investors, trade creditors, and employees through the bankruptcy courts while nevertheless labeling himself as some sort of “premium brand name.”)

    The man makes my skin crawl.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. Sorry if that’s an intemperate way to acknowledge your compliment of my earlier comments, DRJ.

    The guy definitely is frustrating me. It’s hard to attack a con man who’s succeeding with his con without offending the people who’ve been buying into his act.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  66. He keeps saying that he is the only one who’s been talking about immigration. That’s one of his most obvious lies.

    He has meant talking about it in a very upfront, candid, non-politically-correct, non-squishy manner. I haven’t heard any other public figure — at least from the political or Republican class — doing that. That you don’t realize or accept that is presumably in spite of or due to your own ideological biases?

    Mark (e187ae)

  67. We could better say: “No one would be talking about this, no one would be so angry about it, if not for Obama’s executive orders and policies crippling the enforcement of our existing immigration laws and enabling sanctuary cities despite the flood of illegal immigrants and the associated fiscal and law enforcement problems that has created.”

    Maybe we could agree on that, rather than crediting Trump for pointing out something that was already spectacularly obvious.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  68. Start by electing a Congress and a President who are willing to pass that legislation. Then — and only then — can the SCOTUS confirm or discredit the constitutionality of that legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    I hope you’re not one of those people who squirms when the ideological biases of a nominee to the Supreme Court is being discussed. Ultimately, the US Constitution is only as good as the liberalism or conservatism — or leftism or rightism — of the justices sitting on the court. Recent court rulings should convince everyone that the power of ideology runs circles around just about anything else, including otherwise seemingly clearly stated sections of the Constitution and/or the legislation in question.

    Mark (e187ae)

  69. Mark: What strikes you as “very upfront, candid, non-politically-correct, [and] non-squishy” strikes me as rabble-rousing and bigotry. That’s despite the fact that my ideology — which perhaps you’ve misinterpreted, despite my best attempts at being clear here — makes me extremely concerned about our immigration and citizenship policies, and makes me a highly-motivated opponent of Obama’s practices and policies. If you think I’m squishy, in other words, I think you need to look again.

    But it’s not just me who is struck that way by his language. Trump is the very best hope the Democrats have for re-mobilizing the people who elected and re-elected Barack Obama. Those people won’t turn out for Hillary in anything like the same numbers — unless the Dems can do a substantially better job of demonizing her opponent than Obama did against either McCain or Romney.

    His blunt talk, which you see as a feature, I see as a spectacular bug, one that will cost us another four years of Democratic control of the White House.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. Mark (#68): You obviously have no clue about me or my beliefs. If you care to educate yourself, I’ve written 3000+ posts over more than a decade, collected , including commentary on every single SCOTUS nominee during that period. But this ends our conversation about me.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  71. (Apologies for not closing that html tag.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  72. We could better say:

    We instead have gotten Republicans like Jeb Bush flinching and jeering — or remaining mum — and trying to make Trump look like a nativist or xenophobe. But hardly surprising. After all, we’re living in the age of Nidal Hassan-ism, in which even the obvious can’t be stated out loud because, shhh, it’s rude, unkind and lacks compassion!

    (BTW, Nidal Hassan-ism exists in the US military — repeat: US military — not in a group along the lines of the ACLU, Act Up, NAACP, NOW, Emily’s List, etc. So if it’s bad there, it must be damn bad everywhere.)

    Mark (e187ae)

  73. rabble-rousing and bigotry

    Beldar, do you ever focus on the ideological biases (ie, left, right or “center”) of a candidate or nominee to the presidency or the Supreme Court, or any political office in general? I ask because your gut reaction to Trump makes me think of those folks in the inside-the-beltway salons who tend to say, shhh, please don’t talk about his or her socio-political biases! It’s rude, it’s ill-mannered, it’s…rabble-rousing!”

    Mark (e187ae)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.3945 secs.