Trump's Cabinet

[M2]

When Trump throws out the NFA, GCA and FOPA as being unconstitutional (which they all are!), I will give him full credit for supporting and defending the Constitution!

By the way, I would have credited Biden or Obama if they did the same, but neither did!

[Sua Sponte]

6 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Please reconcile for me the discrepancy between your statements here.  Does the constitution actually say illegal criminal invaders require due process prior to deportation as you claim?  Or has “it been decided” meaning a court issued an opinion on something not explicitly covered by the constitution? 
 

Do you argue with an evaluator who's giving you a check ride on how you don't agree with their interpretation of an area of checkride criteria? Who's charged with the final interpretation of said check ride criteria, you or the evaluator? 

[Sua Sponte]

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-133-due-process-and-the-rule

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Do you argue with an evaluator who's giving you a check ride on how you don't agree with their interpretation of an area of checkride criteria? Who's charged with the final interpretation of said check ride criteria, you or the evaluator? 

Evaluators can lose the qual for being dumbasses. like hooks for silly reasons.

[Motofalcon]

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Does the constitution actually say illegal criminal invaders require due process prior to deportation as you claim?  Or has “it been decided” meaning a court issued an opinion on something not explicitly covered by the constitution? 
 

Yes, and both. 

Assuming these illegal criminal invaders are humans, then yes. The 5th amendment states that “No PERSON shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” and the 14th amendment 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 law.”

 It doesn’t say “citizen”, it doesn’t say “legal resident”, it doesn’t say “American”, it doesn’t say “English speaking adult” or anything other descriptor. It says PERSON.  So these PEOPLE have a right to due process; in your example, this would actually determine if they are in fact “criminal” and/or “invaders”. 
 

  And it was decided in Plyler vs Doe (1981) that according to the Supreme Court, “Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.”  Further in the court documents reads “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

  If you don’t like it, then get the law changed - but until it changes, I would expect people who take an oath to the constitution to follow it as currently written/interpreted. 

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, Motofalcon said:

nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Boy are you in for a shock when you actually look into the Senate conversations regarding the 14th amendment.

 

Spoiler alert, it explicitly does not include anyone's subject to the jurisdiction of another country. 

 

Regroup, reassess, then reattack.

Edited 2 hours ago by Lord Ratner

[Motofalcon]

Well the question wasn’t about the senate, it was about the constitution. And last I checked the senate doesn’t interpret the constitution, the Supreme Court does. So I’ll stick with my current assessment until the text or the court’s interpretation of the law changes. 

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Do you argue with an evaluator who's giving you a check ride on how you don't agree with their interpretation of an area of checkride criteria? Who's charged with the final interpretation of said check ride criteria, you or the evaluator? 

Not a perfect comparison but I’ll play: No I do not to your first question; the second one has more than two options and it’s where your analogy falters.  Stan/eval is a commanders program, and I fired an EP (once) for not evaluating in accordance to my directives.  The gentlemen fired was safety focused to a fault, and I wanted to accept more risk for gains in combat.  He wouldn’t change his outlook to account for the aggressive culture I was hired to facilitate, so I overrode his judgement, reclaimed the authority, and hired new EPs who got with the program.  

14 minutes ago, Motofalcon said:

Yes, and both. 

The 5th amendment states that “No PERSON shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” and the 14th amendment 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 law.”

  If you don’t like it, then get the law changed

Good reply!  I’ll start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement quoted.  My understanding of POTUS perspective is a challenge on what constitutes “due process” as he’s searching for a streamlined system fit for circumstances.  Getting 20 million people in front of a judge surpasses existing resources, and it was illegal for the previous administration to let them in.  
 

If the legal answer is impossible, what’s the real world solution?  The people elected an executive who said “I’m deporting them” because they were tired of Laken Riley’s being murdered by illegal criminals.  Democrat lawyers say “not so fast, rule of law!” (Ironic since they ignored rule of law to get the nation into this situation) and have frozen our executives ability to do what the people want.  You’re right the best answer is congress to legislate, but absent that are we forced to accept millions of Venezuelan gangsters soaking up social resources and killing citizens?

This issue was ignored for years when numbers were small & the people were mainly coming in to work.  Under Biden some countries dumped their prison population on us, the amount of young Chinese men who entered is worrying from a national security POV.  So thank you again for the thoughtful reply.  What do you think POTUS should do since the courts cannot process the volume of people we’re dealing with? 

[Sua Sponte]

3 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Not a perfect comparison but I’ll play: No I do not to your first question; the second one has more than two options and it’s where your analogy falters.  Stan/eval is a commanders program, and I fired an EP (once) for not evaluating in accordance to my directives.  The gentlemen fired was safety focused to a fault, and I wanted to accept more risk for gains in combat.  He wouldn’t change his outlook to account for the aggressive culture I was hired to facilitate, so I overrode his judgement, reclaimed the authority, and hired new EPs who got with the program.  

Can Supreme Court Justices not be fired via impeachment? Stan Eval is a commander's program, however, as a commander when you R&C an evaluator, you are giving trust and confidence in that evaluator to follow applicable associate directives and technical manuals. Aren't you a MC-130 guy? Let's see what the MC-130V2 says:

Quote

 

1.6.3. Grading Criteria. To the maximum extent possible, flight examiners should use the

grading criteria in this volume to determine individual area grades. Exercise judgment when

the wording of areas is subjective and when specific areas are not covered. Flight examiner

judgment will be the determining factor in arriving at the overall grade. Consider cumulative

deviations when determining the overall grade. Base tolerances for in-flight parameters on

conditions of smooth air and a stable aircraft. In some cases, momentary deviations are

allowable provided the examinee applies prompt corrective action and such deviations do not

jeopardize safety.

 

Huh, weird it doesn't state "what the commander's directives are." 

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Boy are you in for a shock when you actually look into the Senate conversations regarding the 14th amendment.

 

Spoiler alert, it explicitly does not include anyone's subject to the jurisdiction of another country. 

 

Regroup, reassess, then reattack.

No one cares what the Senate thinks of the 14th Amendment since they aren't the official interpreters of the Constitution and applicable amendments. Sorta like how booms didn't give a shit what pilots thought of how to make contact or pilot's not giving a shit about what a boom thought of an approach and landing. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sua Sponte

[Motofalcon]

46 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Good reply!  I’ll start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement quoted.  My understanding of POTUS perspective is a challenge on what constitutes “due process” as he’s searching for a streamlined system fit for circumstances.  Getting 20 million people in front of a judge surpasses existing resources, and it was illegal for the previous administration to let them in.  
 

If the legal answer is impossible, what’s the real world solution?  The people elected an executive who said “I’m deporting them” because they were tired of Laken Riley’s being murdered by illegal criminals.  Democrat lawyers say “not so fast, rule of law!” (Ironic since they ignored rule of law to get the nation into this situation) and have frozen our executives ability to do what the people want.  You’re right the best answer is congress to legislate, but absent that are we forced to accept millions of Venezuelan gangsters soaking up social resources and killing citizens?

This issue was ignored for years when numbers were small & the people were mainly coming in to work.  Under Biden some countries dumped their prison population on us, the amount of young Chinese men who entered is worrying from a national security POV.  So thank you again for the thoughtful reply.  What do you think POTUS should do since the courts cannot process the volume of people we’re dealing with? 

All valid responses. Again, my answer was “Yes, due process does apply”. What exactly does the “right amount” of due process look like?  That’s the million dollar question, and I don’t have a perfect answer - which is why I’m not running for public office. 
 

  I would think that the “right amount” of due process is somewhere between “Do you have your papers on you RIGHT NOW? No?  Deportation to El Salvador immediately” and the Supreme Court hearing every single case.  In my non-lawyer brain that read it somewhere, “due process” means you get to plead your side of the argument - to what level, that depends. Pulled over for a speeding ticket?  Yeah I guess you can go to the judge and argue. Murder charge?  You get a full jury trial with a chance to defend yourself.  So maybe something like ICE agents can ask you for some sort of papers (but they have to have probably cause, and it already has to be agreed upon what “valid papers” are - passport?  Real ID?  Green card?) and if you can’t produce them (they’re at home because nobody carries their passport around, etc) then they follow you home and allow you to get the papers?  I get that we don’t want to ask for ID, a person can’t produce one, so they are released with a court summons in the future…because that hasn’t been working.  
 

  Maybe something like that?  But whatever it is, I think it needs to be voted on by Congress, because to me it seems extremely close to a law (if not a legal procedure subject to governance just like a cop pulling you over, etc), versus done via Executive Order. Plus, if it is written into law, then we can all sleep easy at night knowing it met judicial review and has a majority of the representatives of the people (where the real power of government should be coming from) behind it.  AND we are meeting the intent and text of the constitution by following the law (vice an EO) therefore nobody is being deprived of their due process. 
 

  And maybe that is already what is happening, I don’t follow ICE’s current procedures - I just know that every person in this country is afforded due process and protection under the law.  What that is needs to be decided BEFORE the agents start rolling out and kicking in doors. 
 

Good discussion, I appreciate the lack of snark.