Tag Archives: Constitution

Guardian: Texas attorney general wants students to pray in school – unless they’re Muslim

Posted on by
Reply

Ken Paxton, who is running for US Senate, is urging schools to say the Lord’s Prayer as a Republican law goes into effect

Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general running for US Senate, has long believed in school prayer. Now, he’s prescribing precisely what type of prayer he wants the state’s 6 million public school students to recite.

“In Texas classrooms, we want the Word of God opened, the Ten Commandments displayed, and prayers lifted up,” Paxton said in a statement on Tuesday, encouraging students to say “the Lord’s Prayer, as taught by Jesus Christ”.

The press release included the full text of the Lord’s Prayer as it is written in the King James version of the Bible, the latest example of Paxton and other Texas officials seeming to endorse Christianity over other faiths.

“Twisted, radical liberals want to erase Truth, dismantle the solid foundation that America’s success and strength were built upon, and erode the moral fabric of our society,” Paxton said. “Our nation was founded on the rock of Biblical Truth, and I will not stand by while the far-left attempts to push our country into the sinking sand.”

Paxton’s statement was released as Senate Bill 11 went into effect across Texas; it’s a piece of Republican legislation allowing schools to set aside time for “prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious texts” during the school day. Critics have condemned the bill as an attempt to imbue a secular public education in the state with the practice of Christianity, in violation of the US constitution’s separation of church and state.

“They’re blowing right through separation of church and state,” said Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

“They have no respect for other faiths. And in fact, that includes a lot of Christians who don’t agree with this far-right version of Christianity. They’re trying to indoctrinate children into this agenda and it’s outrageous, and it’s breaking one of the most important constitutional principles we have in this country with the first amendment and the separation of church and state.”

Beirich added that Paxton, along with figures in Washington DC, such as the House speaker, Mike Johnson, were “people who believe that this country is a Christian nation, that Christianity should have primacy”.

Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for comment about whether he was trying to push Christianity on Texas’s public school students.

It is instructive, however, to revisit how Paxton once reacted to a report of Muslim students praying in a Dallas-area school. In 2017, the attorney general’s office published an open letter to the superintendent of schools in Frisco, Texas, expressing “concerns” over Muslim students at Liberty high school using a spare classroom to pray during school hours.

“It appears that the prayer room is ‘dedicated to the religious needs of some students’,” the letter stated, quoting an article in the school’s newspaper, “namely, those who practice Islam.”

In a subsequent press release, Paxton’s office stated: “Recent news reports have indicated that the high school’s prayer room is … apparently excluding students of other faiths.”

Again, “recent news reports” seemed to refer to a single article in the high school newspaper.

But that article, written by an 11th-grader, made no mention of the room being off-limits to students of other faiths. Rather, the article quotes the principal observing how “the trademark of what makes Liberty High so great” is the “diversity” of the faiths and cultures on campus.

“As long as it’s student-led, where the students are organizing and running it, we pretty much as a school stay out of that and allow them their freedom to practice their religion,” the principal said.

Had Paxton’s office checked with the school district before publishing its open letter, school officials would have noted the spare classroom was available for all students – not just Muslims – to practice their faith.

Paxton, it seemed, had tried to create a culture-war controversy out of thin air.

“It is unfortunate that our state’s top law enforcement officer would engage in a cheap Islamophobic publicity stunt that could very well result in increased bullying of Muslim students and the creation of a hostile learning environment,” the Texas chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (Cair) said in a statement at the time.

That Paxton once fearmongered about Muslims praying in class but is now encouraging students to say the Lord’s Prayer is consistent with his particular brand of Christian nationalism or dominionism, which seeks to erode any wall between church and state, establishing a government run according to a far-right interpretation of Christian scripture.

During his time in public office, Paxton has received considerable financial support from a coterie of ultraconservative west Texas billionaires who, as ProPublica reported, have made the state into “the country’s foremost laboratory for Christian nationalist policy”.

On Thursday, Paxton announced he would appeal a “flawed ruling by a federal judge” that stopped another Christian nationalist piece of legislation from going into effect, this one requiring Texas schools to display the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

“The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of American law, and that fact simply cannot be erased by radical, anti-American groups trying to ignore our moral heritage,” Paxton seethed in another statement.

“There is no legal reason to stop Texas from honoring a core ethical foundation of our law, especially not a bogus claim about the ‘separation of church and state,’ which is a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution.”

Paxton’s wife publicly accused him of disobeying the seventh commandment – “Thou shall not commit adultery” – earlier this summer while stating in a divorce petition that he had had an extramarital affair.

His Christian nationalist statements this week, Texas political observers have noted, might be an attempt to repair his reputation, and to shore up ultraconservative support in his battle to unseat John Cornyn in the US Senate.

If his agenda, and the GOP’s broader Christian nationalist agenda, is allowed to move forward, Beirich said, it will be “absolutely punishing for people of other faiths”.

In a statement to the Guardian, the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, was wary of Paxton’s insistence that students say the Lord’s Prayer in public schools: “Although protecting religious freedom in schools would be a noble pursuit, Attorney General Paxton’s rhetoric and his history of anti-Muslim bigotry raises the obvious suspicion that his embrace of religious liberty will not extend beyond his own claimed faith.

“If Attorney General Paxton wants schools to set aside time for praying and reading scripture, that must include time for Texas Muslims to read the Quran, Jewish students to read the Torah, and on and on,” the group added.

“Only if students of all faiths can freely worship on the same terms without any coercion or favoritism from the government will the Constitution be upheld.”

Texas attorney general wants students to pray in school – unless they’re Muslim
Ken Paxton, who is running for US Senate, is urging schools to say the Lord’s Prayer as a Republican law goes into effect

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/07/texas-ken-paxton-christians-muslims

ABC News: DC attorney general sues to end federal National Guard deployment

Posted on by
Reply

Nearly 2,300 troops from seven states have been stationed in D.C. since Aug. 11.

Washington, D.C., Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb filed a lawsuit on Thursday to end the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the city, calling it an unlawful “military occupation.”

Nearly 2,300 troops from seven states have been stationed in the district since Aug. 11, a move Schwalb says goes beyond the president’s authority and violates local autonomy under the Home Rule Act.

The lawsuit argues the troops were placed under Defense Department command and later deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to perform law enforcement, which Schwalb’s office says is “in violation of the foundational prohibition on military involvement in local law.”

By law, the president’s emergency deployment can last only 30 days unless extended by Congress, meaning the surge is set to expire Sept. 10.

Schwalb also alleges the federal government is unlawfully asserting command over state militias without formally bringing them into federal service, which he says is a violation of the Constitution and federal law.

The complaint says the deployments threaten to erode trust between residents and police, inflame tensions and damage the city’s economy — particularly in the restaurant and hospitality industries as, just last month, the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington extended summer restaurant week in an effort to draw customers during the surge.

The attorney general’s office further argues that the deployments violate the Home Rule Act by overriding local autonomy and undermining public safety “by inflaming tensions and eroding trust between District residents and law enforcement.”

Still, Gregg Pemberton, the D.C. union chairman said the long-term goal is for the Metropolitan Police Department to resume full responsibility.

DC attorney general sues to end federal National Guard deployment
D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb has filed a lawsuit to end Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to D.C., calling it an unlawful “military occupation.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dc-attorney-general-sues-end-federal-national-guard/story?id=125240857

Root: These Leaders Are Calling For Americans to Rebel Against Trump Administration

Posted on by
Reply

From an Army general to congressmen, these powerful voices are urging folks to rebel against the Trump administration.

From where you stand, it may look like you’re just watching unimaginable stuff go down, and nobody’s stepping in to stop it. In only eight months of his second term, President Donald Trump has managed to undermine the Constitution, disrupt the economy, send military troops to cities without congressional approval and divide the country over immigration, civil rights and more. It seems like there’s nothing regular Americans can do to stop him as he continues to complete the missions of his 2024 campaign, but many political leaders are offering suggestions to fight back in ways never seen before.

From local state officials to journalists and influential internet personalities, these powerful voices are urging folks to rebel against the Trump administration, and here’s exactly how they say it needs to be done.

  • DA Larry Krasner
  • Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke
  • Congressman Jerry Nadler
  • Roland Martin
  • Former Vice President Al Gore
  • Director Marshall Herskovitz
  • Former U.S. AG Eric Holder
  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  • NYT Columnist Charles M. Blow
  • Congresswoman Lois Frankel
  • Greed v. Young Americans
  • Local Resistance Movements
  • FEMA Fights Back
  • Peaceful March Against Trump
  • Army General Mark Milley
  • Journalist Toure
  • Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom
These Leaders Are Calling For Americans to Rebel Against Trump Administration

https://www.theroot.com/these-leaders-are-calling-for-americans-to-rebel-agains-2000058801

L.A. Times: As Noem confirms more ICE resources are heading to Chicago, mayor is defying crackdown

Posted on by
Reply

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that immigration operations will soon be expanded in Chicago, confirming plans for a stepped-up presence of federal agents in the nation’s third-largest city as President Trump continues to lash out at Illinois’ Democratic leadership.

Noem’s comments came a day after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson struck back against what he called the “out-of-control” plan to surge federal officers into the city. The Chicago Police Department will be barred from helping federal authorities with civil immigration enforcement or any related patrols, traffic stops and checkpoints during the surge, according to an executive order Johnson signed Saturday.

The Homeland Security Department last week requested limited logistical support from officials at the Naval Station Great Lakes to support the agency’s anticipated operations. The military installation is about 35 miles north of Chicago.

“We’ve already had ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago … but we do intend to add more resources to those operations,” Noem said during a Sunday appearance CBS News’ ”Face the Nation.”

Noem declined to provide further details about the planned surge of federal officers. It comes after the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops to Washington, saying they were needed to target crime, immigration and homelessness, and two months after it sent troops to Los Angeles.

Trump lashed out against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in a social media posting Saturday, warning him that he must straighten out Chicago’s crime problems quickly “or we’re coming.” The Republican president has also been critical of Johnson.

Johnson and Pritzker, both Democrats, have denounced the expected federal mobilization, noting that crime has fallen in Chicago. They are planning to sue if Trump moves forward with the plan.

In his order signed Saturday, Johnson directed all city departments to guard the constitutional rights of Chicago residents “amidst the possibility of imminent militarized immigration or National Guard deployment by the federal government.”

Asked during a news conference about federal agents who are presumably “taking orders,” Johnson replied: “Yeah, and I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

Johnson also blocked Chicago police from wearing face coverings to hide their identities, as most federal immigration officers have done since Trump launched his crackdown.

The federal surge into Chicago could start as early as Friday and last about 30 days, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that had not been made public.

Pritzker, in an interview aired Sunday on “Face the Nation,” said that Trump’s expected plans to mobilize federal forces in the city may be part of a plan to “stop the elections in 2026 or, frankly, take control of those elections.”

Noem said it was a Trump “prerogative” whether to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago as he did in Los Angeles in June in the midst of protests there against immigration raids.

“I do know that L.A. wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action,” Noem said. “That city would have burned if left to devices of the mayor and governor of that state.”

Unlike the recent federal takeover of policing in Washington, the Chicago operation is not expected to rely on the National Guard or military and is focused exclusively on immigration, rather than being cast as part of a broad campaign against crime, Trump administration officials have said.

Chicago is home to a large immigrant population, and both the city and the state of Illinois have some of the country’s strongest rules against cooperating with federal immigration enforcement efforts. That has often put the city and state at odds with the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

Johnson’s order builds on the city’s longtime stance, that neither Chicago nor Illinois officials have sought or been consulted on the federal presence and they stand against Trump’s mobilization plan.

During his news conference Saturday, Johnson accused the president of “behaving outside the bounds of the Constitution” and seeking a federal presence in Democratic cities as retribution against his political rivals.

“He is reckless and out of control,” Johnson said. “He’s the biggest threat to our democracy that we’ve experienced in the history of our country.”

In response, the White House contended that the potential flood of federal agents was about “cracking down on crime.”

“If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the President, their communities would be much safer,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email Saturday.

Critics have noted that Trump, while espousing a tough-on-crime push, is the only felon ever to occupy the White House.

As Noem confirms more ICE resources are heading to Chicago, mayor is defying crackdown
Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem says immigration operations will be expanded in Chicago, whose mayor has signed an order against cooperating with the feds.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-08-31/dhs-secretary-noem-confirms-more-ice-resources-are-heading-to-chicago-for-immigration-crackdown

Time: Judge Blocks Deportation of Hundreds of Unaccompanied Children as Flights Were Ready to Take Off

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump Administration from deporting hundreds of unaccompanied children back to their home country of Guatemala, just as some of the children were boarded on planes and ready to depart.

The last-minute order wrapped up a frenetic legal battle that began in the early hours of Sunday morning, when immigration advocacy groups filed an emergency lawsuit after discovering shelters holding unaccompanied children were abruptly told to prepare them for deportation within two hours.

District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued a temporary block on the deportations at 4 a.m. and called a hearing for Sunday afternoon. That hearing was moved forward when she heard the deportations were already underway, and the judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking deny deportations for 14 days.

“I do not want there to be any ambiguity about what I am ordering,” Judge Sooknanan said, adding that the government “cannot remove any children” while the case is ongoing.

The judge ordered the children to be taken off the planes and made clear that her ruling applies to all Guatemalan minors who arrived in the U.S. without their parents or guardians.

Some children were taken off planes as they were waiting to take off on the tarmac. A government lawyer said in the hearing that one plane had taken off, but later came back when the order was issued.

In their lawsuit, lawyers from the National Immigrant Law Center (NILC) said the children—who are in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)—were due to be handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and deported to Guatemala on Sunday.

The ORR sent memos to shelters holding the children on Saturday telling them to “take proactive measures to ensure [unaccompanied children] are prepared for discharge within 2 hours of receiving this notification.” The memo called for the shelters to “have two prepared sack lunches” and one suitcase per child.

The NILC attorneys said in the lawsuit that they were filing on behalf of “hundreds of Guatemalan children at imminent risk of unlawful removal from the United States,” aged between 10 and 17 years.

The lawsuit said the estimated 600 children had “active proceedings before immigration courts across the country,” and removing them from the country violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Constitution.

“All unaccompanied children — regardless of the circumstances of their arrival to the United States — receive the benefit of full immigration proceedings, including a hearing on claims for relief before an immigration judge,” the attorneys wrote in the lawsuit. 

“Congress provided even further procedural protection to unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings by mandating that their claims for asylum be heard in the first instance before an asylum officer in a non-adversarial setting rather than in an adversarial courtroom setting,” they added. 

Judge Sooknanan granted the plaintiffs’ request for a restraining order to block the deportations early Saturday morning “to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set.”

At the hearing on Sunday, lawyers for the U.S. government insisted that the children were being repatriated with their parents. Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said it was “outrageous that the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with these reunifications.”

That claim was contested by the immigration advocacy groups and attorneys for some of the children, who said at least some of the children said they did not want to return and some faced danger back in Guatemala.

“I have conflicting narratives from both sides here,” Sooknanan said.

“Absent action by the courts, all of those children would have been returned to Guatemala, potentially to very dangerous situations,” she added.

Ensign told Judge Sooknanan the deportations were underway when the order was issued and that he believed one plane had taken off, but had come back.

Minutes after the hearing ended, the Associated Press reported that five charter buses pulled up to a plane parked at an airport near the border in Harlingen, Texas, where deportation flights are known to depart from.

Efrén C. Olivares, vice president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, said the deportations could have caused the children “irreperable harm.”

“In the dead of night on a holiday weekend, the Trump administration ripped vulnerable, frightened children from their beds and attempted to return them to danger in Guatemala,” he said in a statement following the ruling.

“We are heartened the Court prevented this injustice from occurring before hundreds of children suffered irreparable harm. We are determined to continue fighting to protect the interest of our plaintiffs and all class members until the effort is enjoined permanently,” he added.

The ORR, which lies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said the deportations were the result of an agreement between the U.S. and Guatemala. Attorneys representing the children were sent memos informing them that the “Government of Guatemala has requested the return of certain unaccompanied alien children in federal custody for the purposes of reunifying the UAC with suitable family members.”

“This communication is provided as advance notice that removal proceedings may be dismissed to support the prompt repatriation of the child,” the memo, which was reviewed by TIME, said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller criticized Sooknanan for blocking the deportations.

“The minors have all self-reported that their parents are back home in Guatemala. But a Democrat judge is refusing to let them reunify with their parents,” he wrote on X.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment. ICE did not respond to a request for comment.

King Donald & cronies are preying on the most vulnerable so as to maximize their deportation stats.

Judge Halts Deportation of Hundreds of Unaccompanied Children
Immigrant groups are seeking a restraining order to block the abrupt deportation of hundreds of children to Guatemala.

https://time.com/7313641/deportation-guatemala-ice-judge-blocked

Politico: Gavin Newsom: ‘I don’t think Donald Trump wants another election’

Posted on by
Reply

The California governor painted a bleak picture of the state of American democracy under President Trump.

Gavin Newsom warned the country is on the precipice of tipping into authoritarianism, predicting that President Donald Trump does not want to leave office after his term ends and accusing federal immigration officials of acting as “the largest private police force in history.”

The California governor, speaking at POLITICO’s “The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit” on Wednesday, repeatedly urged the audience to “wake up” to dangers he said are posed by the president. He cast Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, as well as Border Patrol agents, as acting in Trump’s interests instead of the general public.

“When they’re done with this — all that funding and that ‘big beautiful betrayal’ allows more resources for this private police force that increasingly is showing a tendency not to swear an oath to the Constitution, but to the president of the United States,” Newsom said.

Newsom — stating that “the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of Don” — predicted the federal agents would be sent to voting booths and polling places across the country. But he later questioned whether there would be future democratic elections at all.

“I don’t think Donald Trump wants another election,” he said, adding he has two dozen “Trump 2028″ hats sent to him by the president’s supporters. He suggested that people dismissing talk of a third term were naive.

Newsom described a moment during his 90-minute Oval Office meeting with Trump in February when the president pointed to a painting of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt — which he interpreted as a nod to Trump’s desire to serve a third term.

Trump said this month he would “probably not” run for a third term, which would be in violation of the Constitution.

Newsom, a likely 2028 candidate, struck an angry and pugilistic tone throughout his interview as he implored Democrats to be more assertive and “stand tall” against Trump. He repeated a piece of advice that he said he once heard from former President Bill Clinton on the rise of American populism: “‘Given the choice, the American people always support strong and wrong versus weak or not,’” Newsom recalled. “And I think our party needs to wake up.”

“We’re losing this country in real time,” he said. “It’s not bloviation, not exaggeration. It’s happening.”

Newsom himself has recently embraced a more aggressive approach on social media, mocking Trump and Republicans through his personal and press office accounts on X. He said he’s pulling few punches on that front as his team deploys more satirical memes and splashy AI-generated content.

“We have a ‘Kill Switch,’” Newsom said, responding to a question about whether he approves the posts. The governor added that he’s killing “less every day,” prompting laughter from the audience.

Gavin Newsom: ‘I don’t think Donald Trump wants another election’
The California governor painted a bleak picture of the state of American democracy under President Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/27/newsom-donald-trump-another-election-00532972

Rolling Stone: Trump Threatens Criminal Charges Against Top Democratic Donor

Posted on by
Reply

The president says Hungarian billionaire George Soros “should be charged”

President Donald Trump is continuing to transform the Justice Department into a tool for vengeance against his political enemies, including billionaire philanthropist and Democratic donor George Soros. 

“George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote Wednesday on Truth Social, referencing conspiracy theories claiming that Soros and his philanthropic group, the Open Society Foundation, pay money to and supply violent protesters. 

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE. Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you!” Trump added. 

Soros has long been a boogeyman for right wingers, who have — for decades at this point — made the Jewish investor the centerpiece of antisemitic conspiracy theories, as well as other conspiracies claiming his financial support of pro-Democracy organizations is actually part of an effort to destroy “western civilization.”

In a statement to Rolling Stone, The Open Society Foundation wrote that “these accusations are outrageous and false. The Open Society Foundations do not support or fund violent protests. Our mission is to advance human rights, justice, and democratic principles at home and around the world.”

“We stand for fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including the rights to free speech and peaceful protest that are hallmarks of any vibrant democracy,” the organization added.

In the early months of Trump’s second administration, and especially in recent weeks, the Justice Department and other federal agencies have been weaponized to go after people Trump  perceives as enemies, and critics of his political project.  

Last week, the FBI raided the home of former national security adviser John Bolton, who has been a public critic of the president since his departure from Trump’s first administration. Last month, the Department of Justice announced that it would launch a “strike force” to investigate former President Barack Obama, and placed New York Attorney General Letitia James — who successfully prosecuted Trump and his company — under investigation. The Justice Department is also probing Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who led the first impeachment of Trump during his first term. The investigations into both James and Schiff center around potential mortgage fraud.

During a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump denied he is weaponizing the government by, as a reporter put it to him, “digging into the mortgage records of officials you don’t like.” Trump responded by saying that the reporter should be the one doing the digging before quickly moving onto a different question.

During the same Cabinet meeting, Trump for the second straight day mused to reporters about the American people wanting a dictator. “I’m not a dictator, I just know how to stop crime,” Trump claimed.

But while Trump may claim he’s not an authoritarian, the way he’s transformed agencies intended to serve the public into his personal attack dogs has all the hallmarks of fascism.

Trump Threatens Criminal Charges Against Top Democratic Donor
President Donald Trump said billionaire Democratic donor George Soros should face RICO charges.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-threatens-charges-george-soros-1235416539

New Civil Rights Movement: ‘Frogs in a Boiling Pot’: Trump Blasted After Again Insisting ‘I’m Not a Dictator’

Posted on by
Reply

For the second day in a row, President Donald Trump insisted he is not a dictator, but also insisted that many Americans would like to have one running the country. Some critics are calling his remarks a “trial balloon.”

“So the line is that I’m a dictator — but I stop crime,” Trump said at his televised Cabinet meeting on Tuesday (video below). “So a lot of people say, ‘You know, if that’s the case, I’d rather have a dictator.’ But I’m not a dictator. I just know how to stop crime.”

Those remarks echo ones he made just one day earlier in the Oval Office while attacking Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker.

“I have some slob like Pritzker criticizing us before we even go there,” he said of his plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. “I made the statement that next should be Chicago, ’cause, as you all know, Chicago’s a killing field right now. And they don’t acknowledge it, and they say, ‘We don’t need him. Freedom, freedom. He’s a dictator, he’s a dictator.’”

“A lot of people are saying, maybe we like a dictator,” Trump mused. “I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator. I’m a man with great common sense and a smart person.”

Declaring that an American president “even suggesting that Americans want to do away with democracy and be ruled” by a dictator is “chilling,” Rolling Stone on Monday noted that “Trump has been ruling like an authoritarian since retaking office in January, repeatedly thumbing his nose at Congress, the Constitution, and any other check on presidential power.”

CNN’s Aaron Blake, even before Trump’s second “I’m not a dictator” attestation, wrote: “Many people are increasingly entertaining the idea of a dictator. They are his supporters.”

“They don’t necessarily say, ‘Yes, I want a dictator.’ But polling shows Republicans have edged in that direction – to a pretty remarkable degree.”

“Perhaps the most startling poll on this came last year,” Blake explained. “A University of Massachusetts Amherst survey asked about Trump’s comment that he wanted to be a dictator, but only for a day,” during the campaign. “Trump said it was a joke, but 74% of Republicans endorsed the idea.”

He noted that a “Pew Research Center poll early this year showed 59% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agreed that many of the country’s problems could be better solved ‘if Donald Trump didn’t have to worry so much about Congress and the courts.’”

And, Blake added, “as many 3 or 4 in 10” Republicans, according to several polls, are “endorsing that kind of power.”

Critics expressed outrage.

Journalist Ahmed Baba observed: “This is the second day in a row he’s said this. This is an intentional normalization effort.”

Journalist Aaron Rupar wrote, “note how Trump on a daily basis is trying to normalize the idea that he’s a dictator.”

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) wrote: “Deploying the military to cities. Breaking laws. Attacking judges. Firing generals, economists, and central bankers who speak truth to power. Praising autocrats who hate America. Republican officials have given up on the rule of law. They obey the law of the ruler. But in America, law is king.”

Hedge fund manager Spencer Hakimian wrote: “You are all frogs in a boiling pot.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

‘Frogs in a Boiling Pot’: Trump Blasted After Again Insisting ‘I’m Not a Dictator’
For the second day in a row, President Donald Trump insisted he is not a dictator, but also insisted that many Americans would like to have one running the country. Some critics are calling his remarks a “trial balloon.” “So the line is that I’m a dictator — but I stop crime,” Trump said at […]
‘Frogs in a Boiling Pot’: Trump Blasted After Again Insisting ‘I’m Not a Dictator’

Alternet: ‘Novel take on the Constitution’: Trump gives away the game on claim GOP is ‘party of states’ rights’

Posted on by
Reply

CNN analyst Aaron Blake said President Donald Trump is now leading Republican party in its assault on states’ rights.

“[Trump] has spent much of his second term attempting to chip away at states’ rights — or at least, the ones he doesn’t like,” said Blake, adding that Trump more recently referred to states as subservient to the federal government in a pitch to get rid of mail-in voting and voting machines.

“Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” the president posted on Truth Social. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, for the good of our country, to do.”

This was not Trump’s first reference to states as “agents” of the federal government, but it was one of the first that referenced himself personally as more powerful.

“This is a rather novel take on the Constitution, to put it mildly,” said Blake, explaining that the Constitution says the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections … shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Congress may tweak regulations, but there is no role for the president.

“And Trump isn’t saying that Congress should outlaw mail-in voting or voting machines, mind you. Instead, he’s saying the states ‘must’ get rid of them because he tells them to — apparently because he was elected president and because he has determined it’s “for the good of the country,” said Blake. “This is merely the latest in a long line of drastic Trump claims to power.

Trump claimed during his first term that the Constitution gave him absolute power, even when out of office, reports Blake. He’s “floated terminating portions of the Constitution, while repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.” Earlier this year, Blake notes Trump suggesting his actions “couldn’t be illegal as long as he was acting to ‘save’ the country.”

These things are inconsistent with decades of conservative orthodoxy, which holds that the federal government should be small and that states should lead the way, said Blake. The 2016, Republican Party platform devoted an entire section to states’ rights, arguing “Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans.”

But since then, Blake says Trump has issued executive orders targeting state and local governments’ “sanctuary” policies, and he’s directed the DOJ to block states from enforcing their own pollution laws. He’s also dispatched troops to Los Angeles without the consent of the governor and federalized the police in Washington, DC. He also tried unsuccessfully to block funding to New York for trying to curb traffic congestion and threatened other state’s funding over transgender rights.

Blake said “if nothing else,” Trump’s latest Truth Social post “has finally said how he really feels about the concept of states’ rights.”

‘Novel take on the Constitution’: Trump gives away the game on claim GOP is ‘party of states’ rights’

https://www.alternet.org/trump-washingotn-dc-troops

Latin Times: Rubio’s Contradicting Arguments on Birthright Citizenship Resurface as Supreme Court Weighs Trump Order Looking to Restrict it

Posted on by
Reply

Rubio’s comments came amid a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth

A new report has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in a federal court filing in 2016 that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status when he was a Republican senator running for president, a position that now stands in sharp contrast to the executive order issued by Trump in January which seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.

Rubio’s 2016 filing responded to a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth, he was not a “natural born citizen.”

As The New York Times points out, the court dismissed the case, but Rubio’s arguments went further than necessary, affirming that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that “all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, ancestry, previous servitude, etc., were citizens of the United States.”

Rubio went on to say that the amendment, the common law on which it was based and the leading Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that “persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth.”

Trump’s executive order, by contrast, states that children born in the U.S. are not automatically citizens if their mothers were either unlawfully present or only in the country on a temporary basis and if their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has been blocked in lower courts, but the administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.

Peter J. Spiro, a citizenship law expert at Temple University, told the NYT that Rubio’s earlier arguments remain significant and that “there’s no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn’t be put to work today against the Trump executive order.” Rubio, now secretary of state, oversees the implementation of immigration and passport laws.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, dismissed the focus on Rubio’s past filing, saying he is “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda,” and claiming that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories.”

Rubio has faced backlash for his contrasting stances on issues affecting immigrants in the past few months, especially Latinos. A group called Keep Them Honest erected signs in May accusing him of betraying Venezuelans after supporting the administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. Rubio, once a leading Republican advocate for TPS, has recently called the designation harmful to U.S. interests and linked it to security threats.

Rubio’s Contradicting Arguments on Birthright Citizenship Resurface as Supreme Court Weighs Trump Order Looking to Restrict it
Rubio’s comments came amid a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth

https://www.latintimes.com/rubios-contradicting-arguments-birthright-citizenship-resurface-supreme-court-weighs-trump-order-588498