By Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Restoring the rule of law and Constitutional government on immigration—something wrecked by Trump’s rule-by-decree with federal agents—is vastly more important than expelling illegal immigrants.
pull down to refresh
related posts
Didn't know about this.
This is my main concern. We are changing all kinds of expectations about how the state exercises its authority.
Yeah, it's discouraging seeing so many people welcome these abuses of power because they fell into the hysteria about illegals.
Whatever tools we give the state will be turned against us. Just a matter of when.
yawn
I don't think the meme applies.
In the context of the US, we have a constitution which supposedly limits the powers of the government. Thing needs to be interpreted though. How we do the interpretation is constantly being negotiated.
Setting a norm for an interpretation that says when using a third party, people have abdicated their fourth amendment protections weakens the cases where the fourth amendment used to be clear (I think we aren't far from US government arguing it has the right to review the data on your phone without a warrant).
Think about TSA: normalizing the suspension of rights in order to do something as basic as traveling because of 9/11 allows for people in government positions to argue for suspensions in similar but adjacent places (eg banking, using the internet).
Another case is the way congress likes to play games with their rules of order (no more filibuster, no need for a supermajority, etc). Once these things are removed, they'll be used by both parties. It's short sighted for whoever is in power to choose expedience over the protection afforded by such things. And things like a supermajority requirement on some votes can be a protection against tyranny...but it can also be dispensed with.
I believe that it is the case that some constraints on government power only hold as long as we keep them universally in place.
Liberia has the same Constitution as USA
Judicial activism has made the Constitution meaningless, words on paper and nothing else
Rule of law is a myth
As a great scholar once said, “It’s just a goddamn piece of paper.”
Absolutely applies to the context at hand, you just did the meme...
Everything you've mentioned though has nothing to do with opening Pandora's box re: ICE etc (which is already open).
4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure, no new precedent has been set here. Taking witnesses phones at the scene of an incident is not uncommon, it's not "unreasonable" because its not arbitrary, these people were at a scene therefore probable cause, its not a dragnet.
3rd party data collection is a technology enabled loop-hole, but also not new. People volunteering data to 3rd parties without something analogous to attorney-client-privlege certainly gives the state more power, but that's not the state seizing that power.
Where are all the social-justice warriors on enacting something similar to attorney-client privilege? Nowhere, because the deep state that astroturfs them uses and has used this same data.
That's missing the forest for the trees anyway, the NSA knows whats on your phone regardless and you accepted that when you bought a closed source device. The 4th amendment simply makes it not admissible, and the government has an incentive not to divulge the full extent of its capabilities over paid agitators at a mundane hissy fit. That knowledge can however be used to point to things that are admissible.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is well-known as a communist quote, but as old as human organization in practice.
If you've got something new that 10s of thousands of lawyers over decades have overlooked, let's hear it. I don't think anyone has come close to making the case that the right to free travel is abridged by denying access to government run infrastructure. Your right to walk across the country hasn't been abridged.
You mean how the Trump organization is suing JPM and BoA and using the political de-banking to push Bitcoin?
Not a constitutional issue.
The case for Republicans removing the filibuster it is that Democrats already plan to do it if returned to majority and have openly stated so.
The more important context being that it would be for cleaning up the elections, as rigged elections are democrats only path to returning to majority.
Being so feckless as allowing them to return to power through rigged elections would be a Kerensky moment, the same weakness that let the Bolsheviks take over and do far worse than anything lolbertarians are queasy about.
All for not if elections are rigged. The same super-majority requirement prevents dismantling parts of the administrative state, you can't complain the government never shrinks if you handcuff the people that would shrink it. People that would expand it don't have these qualms, so you're putting any good guys at a disadvantage which is how we got here in the first place.
Who puts the constraints on government power? who enforces that? The government. It's a circular argument. Power vacuums get filled regardless, you either wear the boot or the boot wears you.
So with all that cleared up, wtf has ICE/CBP/DHS done that pushes new boundaries? Or is this only on peoples minds because the queasy and feckless are still brainwashed enough by the MSM to virtue signal about the headlines du jour?
plot twist, it works just like its supposed to hahahahhaha
Trump is a significant and dangerous escalation of presidential powers. Now, the next president will be able to use
but Trumpas an excuse to do their own sh*tCould also be a return to normalcy. Politics isn't linear.
I hope so. but i wouldn't bet on it
we should impeach him a third time!
Trump honestly had a pretty simple job but he had to go and botch it.
The entire political right was given the easiest layup I've ever seen and couldn't help but alienate most of the country.
I would be really mad if I wasn't already super blackpilled about everything
He's never worked a real job in his life. Per his own multiple biographies, including those by Bill O'Rielly, he's had every job and opportunity handed to him from his father's work. Why would we expect him to actually work at something now?
I mean, he'd actually be a better president if he'd work less at it.
(Though, to be honest, it's probably more his cabinet members and political allies that are being over zealous, and he just doesn't care enough to rein them in. So, yeah, guess he should work at it more.)
actually it's not a simple job when paid agitators are interfering and threatening and doxing law enforcement