DOGE: the giant Con

[MNW67]

Yes it is dull and dated in a sense but it is their founding document. I'll give it another bash. I'm seeing lots of articles stating 'constitutional crisis' or something to that effect, so thought I'd try and understand their constitution and where the breaking of such is occurring, if it indeed it is occurring.

The other big thing at the moment is that it is argued that Trump has breached the right of Congress to control spending which apparently comes from Article 1 Section 9:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

 

[Lirefighter]

With the greatest respect, I didn't get the impression from our discussion the other day that these are really your areas of expertise.

Not sure what discussion you mean, but you are quite right, I am not an expert on the US constitution, it's law, or anything else regarding it.
I don't know why you could have thought that I was?

 

[MNW67]

Not sure what discussion you mean, but you are quite right, I am not an expert on the US constitution, it's law, or anything else regarding it.
I don't know why you could have thought that I was?

Because you claim to understand the consequences of an extremely complex strategy document dealing with the US constitution better than respected professors of constitutional law.

 

[Deleted member 265726]

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.

'without due process of law' is pertinent too.

It looks to me, from this snippet, as though they may have to take each and every person they wish to expel through the courts individually. That would cost a small fortune.

 

[Notch7]

This project 2025 plan you appear to object to, can you list ten of their aims that you don't agree with.
I've had a butchers and there doesn't seem to be much of concern imo.

Do you understand what the separation of powers means

 

[MNW67]

'without due process of law' is pertinent too.

It looks to me, from this snippet, as though they may have to take each and every person they wish to expel through the courts. That would cost a small fortune.

I think that the way it will be actually be settled, though, is with a single test case at the Supreme Court. The whole executive order will then either be ruled legal or illegal. There are some interesting and quite basic articles out there on the internet about the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I read a few a couple of weeks ago. Trump's argument is that if both your parents are non-citizens, then they are both subject to the jurisdiction of another country. And therefore any child they produce in the USA is also subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country rather than exclusively being subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

 

[Notch7]

What parts of the US Constitution have been broken? I started reading it last night but fell asleep.

Do you think that politicians should be above the law?

 

[Mottie]

Musk has been selecting a bunch of made up lies or out of context

Does he remind you of anyone?

 

[Deleted member 265726]

I think that the way it will be actually be settled, though, is with a single test case at the Supreme Court. The whole executive order will then either be ruled legal or illegal. There are some interesting and quite basic articles out there on the internet about the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I read a few a couple of weeks ago. Trump's argument is that if both your parents are non-citizens, then they are both subject to the jurisdiction of another country. And therefore any child they produce in the USA is also subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country rather than exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

Yes case law sets a precedent. Now I think about it, I remember listening to him talk about deportation, can't recall where, but I picked up on him saying he would not break up families in order to carry out deportation and I thought 'good, he isn't a brute'. In reality, it is a point of law he is arguing. If they are illegal, they should go. If they are not, they should stay, that is what I think.

 

[Lirefighter]

Because you claim to understand the consequences of an extremely complex strategy document dealing with the US constitution better than respected professors of constitutional law.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort.
I'm offering my opinion on the policies set out in the project 2025 document whilst also leading you to question what the 'respected' experts views are regarding it.

 

[Lirefighter]

Do you understand what the separation of powers means

No. Please explain.

 

[MNW67]

Yes case law sets a precedent. Now I think about it, I remember listening to him talk about deportation, can't recall where, but I picked up on him saying he would not break up families in order to carry out deportation and I thought 'good, he isn't a brute'. In reality, it is a point of law he is arguing.

I think all the controversial executive orders have some sort of arguable legal basis. For instance, Trump could only pass the order putting tariffs on Canada because he declared a national emergency over a fictitious fentanyl crisis coming from Canada. As regards birthright citizenship, the executive order is based on the point of law I highlighted above, and apparently is something the right wingers have been itching to get tested in the Supreme Court for decades.

 

[Deleted member 265726]

Do you think that politicians should be above the law?

No but ours appear to have immunity from the law on the whole. And it needs to end in the UK.

 

[MNW67]

No. Please explain.

In democracies like ours and the USA, it means you have an executive (the government), a legislature (Parliament or Congress) and a judiciary. And they all have different and distinct roles in making laws and ensuring the constitution is followed. And the argument is that Trump is trying to take a lot of the powers away Congress for himself, and also ignore any courts who rule his behaviour to be unconstitutional. And if it goes far enough, you end up on the slippery slope to a dictatorship.

 

[MNW67]

No but ours appear to have immunity from the law on the whole. And it needs to end in the UK.

In the UK, we don't really have a constitutional court like in the USA. The foundation of UK law is that any Act of Parliament is automatically legal and cannot be challenged in court. But when we were in the EU we became subject to the EU courts. Also, there is the Human Rights Act now which takes away some power from Parliament. Whereas in America, any law passed can be challenged as unconstitutional in the courts.