6 ms·

No, they couldn't, thanks to the Constitution. They have the rights of due process and habeas corpus.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
If you are deported without any due process (as has already occurred), what will you do about it from a Salvadorian prison?
marticode 2y ago
You are assuming the administration will respect legal decisions. This is sadly no longer a given...
CamperBob2 2y ago
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper" -- a different Republican POTUS
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Jalad 2y ago
    > modern multi-national criminal organizations with the capabilities of nation-states. Citation needed
  - weard_beard 2y ago
    I beg to differ. I would argue the founders of the US invented the practice: https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-symposia/the-other-slavery-perspective.pdf https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-sym...
  - c0nducktr 2y ago
    You're smarter than this. Seriously, take the blinders off for a minute.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I’m smart enough to understand that norms only work when they’re a two-way street. If the constitution is alive and “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law, then it’s alive for both sides, and the Trump administration should go looking for what emanations they can find in the penumbras of Article II.
      - jwilber 2y ago
        What’s your viewpoint on Americans being sent to el Salvadoran prisons because they keyed a Ford?
        rayiner 2y ago
        I take Trump seriously but not literally. El Salvador is probably a stretch too far. But Trump’s attorneys should channel their inner Alvin Bragg and see if they can bring terrorism charges.
      - mindslight 2y ago
        Just to be clear here, by "both sides" you mean both professional political machines - the bureaucratic authoritarians of the Democratic party and the autocratic authoritarians of the Republican party - with both succeeding at getting the Supplicated Council to write justifications that undermine individual liberty. This is the dynamic you're arguing in favor of escalating. Personally I wasn't a huge fan of the bureaucratic authoritarians either, but at least they brought us a measure of relative stability instead of, well, this (gestures vaguely around).
        yubblegum 2y ago
        Both of these machines are greased by the same lubricant & manufacturer. Agree re. ambiance but personally the sinister aspect was barely disguised.
        rayiner 2y ago
        No, by “both sides” I mean legal liberals and legal conservatives, which doesn’t quite match up with the parties. But first to address your point about “individual liberty.” The constitution is a framework for a republican federal government, designed to operate in conjunction with state governments that had inherited the plenary powers of the British parliament. The constitution envisions that individuals have certain liberties, but also that the government can constrain people from doing what they want in other ways. “More individual liberty” doesn’t automatically mean “more constitutional.” The difference between legal liberals and legal conservatives is their views of whose ideas define the scope of individual liberty versus government power. For example, whose ideas do you turn to to decide whether blue laws are an infringement of religious liberty, or within the legitimate scope of state power to regulate the “public health, welfare, and morals?” Legal liberals believe in a “living constitution.” They not only believe that contemporary ideas can inform the meaning of the constitution, but believe in certain privileged sources of those ideas. So, in their view, blue laws can be unconstitutional based on modern political philosophy, even if the founding generation regarded them as consistent with individual liberty, and contemporary voters support retaining them. In my view, legal liberals should be held to their own standard. If the meaning of the constitution can be informed by contemporary ideas, Stephen Miller is just as valid a source of such ideas as the Harvard Law faculty.
  - wilg 2y ago
    We probably don't need to adapt the constitution to the changing times of people protesting outside Tesla stores.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
dragonwriter 2y ago
They could. It might not be legal, but this Administration doesn't care much about that, and good luck enforcing a writ of habeas corpus issued by a US court on a prison in El Salvador.
rs186 2y ago
I guess you have not been following the news. https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immigration-dd4f61999f85c4dd8bcaba7d4fc7c9af https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immig... Constitution does not matter in this administration. They control the ICE and just do whatever they want. It's not like a judge can physically stop ICE from arresting and deporting people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
carbonbioxide 2y ago
[flagged]

If you are deported without any due process (as has already occurred), what will you do about it from a Salvadorian prison?

marticode 2y ago

You are assuming the administration will respect legal decisions. This is sadly no longer a given...

CamperBob2 2y ago

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper" -- a different Republican POTUS

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- Jalad 2y ago
  > modern multi-national criminal organizations with the capabilities of nation-states. Citation needed
- weard_beard 2y ago
  I beg to differ. I would argue the founders of the US invented the practice: https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-symposia/the-other-slavery-perspective.pdf https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-sym...
- c0nducktr 2y ago
  You're smarter than this. Seriously, take the blinders off for a minute.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I’m smart enough to understand that norms only work when they’re a two-way street. If the constitution is alive and “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law, then it’s alive for both sides, and the Trump administration should go looking for what emanations they can find in the penumbras of Article II.
    - jwilber 2y ago
      What’s your viewpoint on Americans being sent to el Salvadoran prisons because they keyed a Ford?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        I take Trump seriously but not literally. El Salvador is probably a stretch too far. But Trump’s attorneys should channel their inner Alvin Bragg and see if they can bring terrorism charges.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Just to be clear here, by "both sides" you mean both professional political machines - the bureaucratic authoritarians of the Democratic party and the autocratic authoritarians of the Republican party - with both succeeding at getting the Supplicated Council to write justifications that undermine individual liberty. This is the dynamic you're arguing in favor of escalating. Personally I wasn't a huge fan of the bureaucratic authoritarians either, but at least they brought us a measure of relative stability instead of, well, this (gestures vaguely around).
      - yubblegum 2y ago
        Both of these machines are greased by the same lubricant & manufacturer. Agree re. ambiance but personally the sinister aspect was barely disguised.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        No, by “both sides” I mean legal liberals and legal conservatives, which doesn’t quite match up with the parties. But first to address your point about “individual liberty.” The constitution is a framework for a republican federal government, designed to operate in conjunction with state governments that had inherited the plenary powers of the British parliament. The constitution envisions that individuals have certain liberties, but also that the government can constrain people from doing what they want in other ways. “More individual liberty” doesn’t automatically mean “more constitutional.” The difference between legal liberals and legal conservatives is their views of whose ideas define the scope of individual liberty versus government power. For example, whose ideas do you turn to to decide whether blue laws are an infringement of religious liberty, or within the legitimate scope of state power to regulate the “public health, welfare, and morals?” Legal liberals believe in a “living constitution.” They not only believe that contemporary ideas can inform the meaning of the constitution, but believe in certain privileged sources of those ideas. So, in their view, blue laws can be unconstitutional based on modern political philosophy, even if the founding generation regarded them as consistent with individual liberty, and contemporary voters support retaining them. In my view, legal liberals should be held to their own standard. If the meaning of the constitution can be informed by contemporary ideas, Stephen Miller is just as valid a source of such ideas as the Harvard Law faculty.
- wilg 2y ago
  We probably don't need to adapt the constitution to the changing times of people protesting outside Tesla stores.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

dragonwriter 2y ago

They could. It might not be legal, but this Administration doesn't care much about that, and good luck enforcing a writ of habeas corpus issued by a US court on a prison in El Salvador.

rs186 2y ago

I guess you have not been following the news. https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immigration-dd4f61999f85c4dd8bcaba7d4fc7c9af https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immig... Constitution does not matter in this administration. They control the ICE and just do whatever they want. It's not like a judge can physically stop ICE from arresting and deporting people.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

carbonbioxide 2y ago

[flagged]