“Let’s start with the role of the courts. The idea that the judicial branch owes special deference to the elected branches of government was thoroughly rejected by the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution. “As to the constitutionality of laws,” Luther Martin told the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on July 21, 1787, “that point will come before the judges in their proper official character. In this character they will have a negative on the laws.” Federal judges, Martin explained, “could declare an unconstitutional law void,” thereby overruling the actions of the elected branches. None of the delegates disagreed with that.
“This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government,” Oliver Ellsworth told the Connecticut Ratification Convention on January 7, 1788. “If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void.”
James Madison, often called the “father of the Constitution,” made the same point in his June 8, 1789, speech to Congress introducing the Bill of Rights. The proper role of the courts, Madison said, was to act as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.””
JD Vance takes to Twitter to make false claims while advocating for taking away immigrants’ due process rights.
The right to due process is for all people on American soil. It doesn’t mean people suspected of being illegal immigrants get a full jury trial, but there is some appropriate process to decrease the possibility of penalizing, deporting, or sending them to a dictator who may kill them for opposing the authoritarian regime.
“Even in the relatively short term, developers will respond to higher demand by building more units, so long as land-use policy is permissive enough to allow additional supply.
Vance acknowledges this point himself in his speech in referencing Austin, Texas.
Said Vance, “In Austin, you saw this massive increase of people moving in. The cost of housing skyrocketed. But then, Austin implemented some pretty smart policies, and that brought down the cost of housing, and it’s one of the few major American cities where you see the cost of housing leveling off or even coming down.”
If new supply can mitigate the upward housing cost pressure created by population growth in Austin, it can do the same for the country as a whole. That’s true even if it’s immigrants creating the population growth.”
““I think we are making a mistake,” Vance wrote in the Signal chat, later published by The Atlantic. Vance argued that although Trump wanted to send a message with the strikes, “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.” He did say, though, that he was “willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself,” but went on to say “there is a strong argument for delaying this a month.”
Minutes later, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller shut down the conversation, writing, “As I heard it, the president was clear.””
…
“The senior Republican official added: “It’s one thing to have a healthy interagency debate before a decision is made. It’s another to try and undo a Commander-in-Chief decision once Trump gives the execute order. This is the latter, and it’s very [John] Bolton-esque.”
Some Republicans believe Vance raising questions about an action the president had already agreed to amounted to a form of obstruction, the same senior Republican official said.”
“Vance’s gamble to temporarily step into the limelight has paid off in at least one significant way. After Zelenskyy left the West Wing without signing a highly anticipated mineral rights deal, the White House responded by adopting one of Vance’s signature foreign policy initiatives: a total pause on U.S. military aid to Ukraine.”
Zelensky points out flaws in Trump’s and Vance’s positions and rhetoric, then Vance and Trump get pissed. Trump starts ranting about Hunter Biden and “hoaxes” about Russia. Trump basically says: go along with what I want, or we abandon you.
After the conversation, Zelensky still wants a deal; the Trump team says no.
Senator Graham blames everything on Zelensky, as opposed to what actually happened, showing that he has no dignity or honesty in service of Trump.
“Vance’s most comprehensive statement of this radical position came in an interview I conducted with him in January 2023 for a profile in POLITICO Magazine. During the interview, I referred to comments that he had made on a conservative podcast in 2021 suggesting that Trump, if reelected, should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, [and] every civil servant in the administrative state … and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”
I asked Vance if this was still his view.
“Yup,” he responded.”
…
“Vance’s rhetorical quibbling aside, his suggestion is radical. The course of action he is recommending — the president openly defying a Supreme Court order and then challenging the courts to enforce it — would amount to a full-fledged constitutional crisis of a different sort, one that would entirely upend the existing rules governing the separation of powers between the courts and the executive branch.”
“Eberstadt’s work shows that the decline in work force participation of American men has been steady and ongoing since the 1960s. It has continued steadily during periods when immigration has been high, and when it has been low.
Other economic factors also fail to explain this steady decline, as Eberstadt wrote in an essay for National Affairs in 2020: “The tempo of workforce withdrawal appears to be almost completely unaffected by the tempo of national economic growth, which varied appreciably over this period. Even recessions—including the Great Recession—appear to have scarcely any impact on the trend. Likewise, the NAFTA agreement, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, and other ‘disruptive’ trade events with major implications for the demand for labor in America do not stand out,” Eberstadt wrote in 2020.
In other words, it’s not the natcon boogeymen of free trade and immigration that are driving this outcome. Eberstadt has argued that a lack of educational options for low-income men is the primary cause, though a number of cultural changes have also played a role, including “family structure, government-benefit dependence, and mass incarceration.””
…
“Contrary to Vance’s claim, it does not seem like most of those men have been forced out of the work force by employers who are eager to “import somebody from Central America who’s going to work under the table for poverty wages.” Rather, they’ve left the work force for a variety of reasons. Some are in jail, some are disabled, some are caring for family members or otherwise unable to commit to a full-time job. The notion that America has 7 million able-bodied men who would be working if only they could find a job is misguided.
Vance’s argument also ignores other relevant details, like the fact that men’s participation in the labor force has increased over the past four years. It’s not what you’d expect to see if the Biden administration’s immigration policies were forcing working-age American men out of jobs.”
…
“”Inability to find a job has played a minimal role in men’s declining labor supply,” concluded Eberstadt’s colleague Scott Winship, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in an essay published last month by Fusion. After reviewing decades of data about why nonworking men are still without a job, Winship concluded that “only about a quarter of the increase in prime-age men who were jobless for a full year was explained by men who wanted a job.””
…
“”The decline in work force participation among working-age men hasn’t been due to any deterioration in the labor market or economy,” Winship wrote in an email on Wednesday. “It mostly reflects rising school enrollment, increased responsibilities at home, earlier retirement, and especially increased receipt of disability benefits. The latter is primarily a problem with our disability policy rather than with our economy.””