I was transferred by my job to red state Georgia in 1992 & purchased a home in Forsyth County. I experienced the same strange & at times menacing treatment by white Georgians in public settings such as gas stations & road side restaurants. I’m white & pretty innocuous myself but it must have been the CT Yankee accent that gave me away. Over the years the county has become more integrated but southern style conservatism persists & after Trump won the 2016 election the stars & bars returned to the flag poles of the some of the nicest homes in town. ICE has detained my first lawn guy & now has the wife of my second lawn guy. I fired my white lawn service company because they could not follow directions & did an over all crappy job. My south of the border guys not only excelled at yard work but they were friendly & could be counted on. When my old sick dog passed at home one morning I called my lawn guy and on the same day he dug the grave and buried my best friend before the sun was high in the sky. I can only hope that the Trump madness is brought to an end soon and things go back to normal.
https://www.myajc.com/news/local/forsyth-county-the-national-divide-nuts...
22
This civil war has been going on since the days of Joe McCarthy, at least. And the reasons for this war have been numerous. Is supporting racism a good reason to go to war? The GOP thinks so. Are taxes a good reason? The GOP thinks so. A machine gun in every home? The GOP thinks so.
On the other hand, is "looking the other way" as meth and heroin are smuggled into the country a good reason? Ask the Democrats. Should felonies be reduced to misdemeanors to protect lousy candidates for citizenship? Ask the Democrats.
We are in a fine pickle.
5
The real war is between the blue states and the Constitution. The Constitution clearly says the federal government is responsible for national security, border control is part of national security.
9
I find the outrage of "blue states" about the end of SALT deductions both astonishing and hypocritical. The Democrats are always complaining about the rich not paying their fair share and now they are complaining when the taxes of the rich in their states are going up. Plus, most economists will state that tax deductions to support something are equivalent to the government spending on that something...so why are low tax states subsidizing high tax states?
6
So, states have a "right" to Federal money?
Ah, the blackrobes. They fancy themselves the philosopher kings and queens. They are headed for a reckoning.
Ultimately, here's the issue: the Federal government has sole power over questions of immigration. But there are individual states who believe that they should have power over questions of immigration. Simple as that. States have no power over immigration policy. This is going to get made very clear eventually.
8
You seem to be missing the point that the people in the white house were put there by a minority of Americans in the red (and in some cases, purple) states. And, more rural versus more urban America (just like the original civil war of the 1800s). So, yes, we are still re-fighting the same old civil war (complete with all the racism). I wish we could just find a way to peacefully separate the country but 'little' problems like how to divvy up the national debt and the nuclear arsenal kind of stand in the way. It's too bad, because the blue states would be so much better off without having the ball and chain of the red states.
23
Let's think critically about this for moment. An 18-year-old child is a legal adult free to do as he or she wishes even if that's staying out late, partying, and dropping out of school. However if crazy girl Cali still wants mom and dad to pay all her bills then she's gotta get in line and follow their rules.
Now let's think about California. I think California has every right to make itself a sanctuary state and they have every right to harbor every single murder, rapist and other undesirable criminal that they want - alien or citizen. But if they don't want to follow federal law, why should federal funds go those departments of the State of California that are deliberately violating Federal Law? Federal funds come from taxpayers across the country. Taxpayers across the country have elected the folks in the federal government. The Federal Government gets to decide how those funds are allocated (and that includes the census).
I loathe Trump - because he doesn't respect our laws or our country. By the same token I'm no fan of illegal immigration particularly when it comes to those folks who not only enter illegally but go on to commit other crimes. If CA wants to take them in, they're free to do so. They're not free to demand that my taxes go towards that, however.
5
The real civil war is between facts and feeling
9
Authoritarianism is always wrong. The cities in town in California don’t have to be told how to use their resources for policing whether it be by state or federal government decree
20
Maybe Linda Greenhouse was once a perceptive observer of the American legal system, but if so that day has passed. She seems horrified to see politicians engaged in politics (e.g. restoring the old census question about citizenship) and even more horrified to discover that ICE agents might actually deport people unlawfully present in the USA. Similarly, she perceives public policy of which she simply disapproves (the SALT tax deduction hit) as somehow inherently illegitimate. That tax change will cost me, a California homeowner, quite a bit of money next year, but I intend to use votes, rather than courts, as a way to shape core American public policy. That is the only way we can keep this project of self governance on track. I don't know if she realizes or cares, but Greenhouse comes across here as the very sort of out of touch snooty elite that Trump ran against in the first place.
18
Journalism at its best. Linda, thank you for a clear-eyed and timely article. This is why I read the NYT.
23
"If the executive branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken.”
So why is the federal government able to do this with title 9 and schools? The federal government says, "Follow our interpretation of gender equality and access in college or high school or lose your federal funding." How is this any different?
11
The same way with forcing the states to raise drinking ages to 21: do it or get cut off from highway and transportation money.
4
Honestly, I thought today democracies are experiencing non-violent struggles for expanded powers that reflect ideologies, partisanship, or personal beliefs that are compelling societies and states (citizens and institutions) to follow paths that abridge their liberties, limit opportunities and control national resources through cabral-style fiat and edict--the use of law, budgets, enforcement, and other authorities, including public opinion and select enforcement.
Mature democracies are discovering their is lots of room with democratic structures for tyranny, corruption, theft, privilege, and punishment in violation of law and liberties or equal rights and opportunities. It is happening not only in the executive branches, but in the states as well, those passing laws that permit secession, create currencies, and take own federal tasks, in some cases. The wholesale rejection of expanded healthcare coverage for seniors (paid for in the bill's authority) is an egregious example. Another was the suing of Argentina by hedge funds.
We are witnessing the first global attack against expanded liberties through democratic structures in both mature and developing economies. Modernization, huge capital growth, global markets have all played a role, but in the US, the attacks on the rule of law and fundamental principles is accelerating in the name of security, a dictator's ploy.
23
"Well, we only meant the federalism we like."
Reaganism let slip the dogs of greed and nativism, and Trumpism is putting testosterone-laden red meat in their foodbowls.
22
If the evil elven bayou serpent believes that The Federalist Papers were written in favor of the Confederacy, then it must not be the case. The South will not rise again. Either we all survive this, or none of us do. Fear and exclusion are political levers of the weak-minded.
8
The Sheriff of Orange County came up with a truly brilliant way to cooperate with the Federal immigration officials without giving sanctuary scofflaws grounds to object: she plans to post the prisoner release dates and times on their website -- for ALL prisoners. Without telling the Feds when the illegal "immigrants" will be released, she will be telling the Feds exactly when they will be released. Brilliant!
18
Linda: for real? You write that high taxes support “decent public services” ..... they also support bloated public pensions, sops to public employee unions , and yet, the results are entirely lacking (school test scores, infrastructure health)
Where oh where has my tax dollar gone? Apparently *not* to anything that produces measurable results
12
best way to reconcile your concern-your taxes go to blowing up things around the world, tax breaks for the industrial prison complex, agribusiness etc and mine go to national parks and social services. see, better already.
16
No, not better already. All of those are a waste. Deport the illegals, build the wall, bring the troops home, privatize the parks, and eliminate most "social services". Let me keep my money. There, now it's better.
If we don't have a real Civil War before this is all done, I'll be surprised. There's sufficient division among Americans AND too many have guns and the desires to use them.
Can't happen, you say? Why, because this is America? Ha! You bet your last bitcoin that a Civil War can happen. We have the enabler in the White House along with those in Congress.
15
Too many have guns and desires to use them??? Care to substantiate that claim.
2
I am so glad OConnor is gone. Simple question: What gives the state the right to request federal money for law enforcement and then to shield and harbor alien criminals?
This civil war is just a continuation of BO's White House versus Red states. Remember that! Remember the Senate stonewalling BO's confirmation for his liberal choice for Supreme Court. Worked perfect.
This is not going to end well for the states and their liberal Dims!
Long live Trump's identity politics to erase BO's legacy.
9
Sandra O'Connor was a Reagan appointee. So did Saint Ronnie make a mistake there?
3
"The federal government can’t “commandeer” the states to carry out its enforcement objectives, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority in a 1992 case"
Really? So the when Eisenhower sent in the 82nd airborne to enforce the Brown integration case in Little Rock, that was not "commandeering"
History, read it. The STUPID is strong.
12
The regular Army is a Federal asset, at the chief executive's disposal. Local and state law enforcement organizations are not. You're right, the stupid is strong.
Nevertheless, the legality of Eisenhower's move is debatable. The moral rectitude is clear though.
10
The STUPID is strong alright. 1) The U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. Tied to the 14th Amendment, the decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools throughout the nation.
2) The 101st Airborne, a federal force, not a state force, went to Little Rock to enforce. The state forces were not commandeered.
3) Constitutional rights trump states rights.
5
>>> "So the when Eisenhower sent in the 82nd airborne to enforce the Brown integration case in Little Rock, that was not 'commandeering'"
Not a valid comparison. The 101st Airborne (it wasn't the 82nd) was never under any command but the federal executive, and the National Guard units of the various states have always been under dual control by state and federal governments and subject to nationalization pursuant to presidential order.
See Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 of the Constitution and 32 U.S.C.
2
There is an entirely different view that Ms. Greenhouse is missing. The Blue States have AN ARROGANCE about them that can be summarized by: "We must impose our values on you (fill-in adjectives such as stupid) Red State heathens." In short, if we did not impose our values on you, then you would NEVER BE AS ENLIGHTENED as we are.
I've been blessed to have been in most of the Lower 48 and I've chosen to live where I do. It is important to treat everyone with the respect and dignity afforded to each of us as Children of God.
Imposing the values that often are foreign to those of us in Red States is ultimately what brought POTUS Trump to power.
While we can disagree vigorously with what POTUS Trump is doing, talk to people at the barber shop/beauty parlor, grocery store, Wal-Mart, et al. and you won't hear what the talking heads on radio and TV are saying (just ask Gary Abernathy).
Rule of Law matters. Someone who came to this country illegally has violated the law. Period. My bottom line is that if you want to stay here, then get a sponsor who will commit to getting you through the process. Don't expect people like me to give you a pass that others (who are here legally) typically would not receive.
California has a problem, since it allowed people to illegally enter this country and now California has the dilemma of how to protect these people from federal law. Irrespective of what California Democrats think, federal law TRUMPS state law (pun intended).
13
It appears you are missing the point here – yes, Federal law does trump State law – when they conflict. The several States do not write, pass, or enforce immigration law; they do not have the authority to do so. The is a decided matter of federal law.
Refusing to allow the federal government to co-opt local law enforcement to carry out federal law is well-established separation of powers. California is not tortuously interfering with ICE; the agents are free to carry out their duties. The State is not assisting in that process; under federalism the State is not required to do so. If the federal government cannot co-opt state and local law enforcement personnel to arrest Cliven Bundy, then neither can the federal government assign ICE duties to state and local law enforcement. You can’t have it both ways.
18
Hmmm, I can remember as a kid traveling through the south with my parents and being unable to order food in restaurants and generally harassed simply because of our New England license plate and accents. It was actually scary at times. If you think the red states haven't contributed to the problem, and aren't arrogant, think again.
32
>>> "California has a problem, since it allowed people to illegally enter this country. . ."
In common with every other state in this Union, California has no authority and no control over the national borders of the United States. None.
12
Chicago defeated Sessions in court, and reminded him that Chicago is its own ecosystem, it draws water and can circulate that water. Trump's base wanted a president who was supposed to provide them with a smaller, less centralized federal government. Yet, again he has duped those faithful to him, and even has them demanding the federal government meddle MORE via the thinly veiled xenophobia he espouses in speeches. "Lock her up" is small government? Demanding Texas, Arizona and California bend for his wall is small government? I wish his base would make up its mind what they really want.
17
No, really we just hated Hillary. Just about anyone else could have beat Trump. The liberals literally picked the worst possible person. O.J. could have done better.
3
It's always been this way with the Republicans. They believe in state's rights only as long as their belief system and their lobbyists agree with it. For Oregon, the most famous one was when Bush tried to get our Death With Dignity law thrown out. I'm not interested whether or not you agree with it. It was put on the ballot by Initiative petition, voted for by the majority and sent back to the ballot by a Republican controlled legislature where the voters voted for it by bigger numbers just to have Bush challenge it and the High Court agreed with Oregon. If the righties really respected states rights, they wouldn't have fought it the way they did. Same goes with legal marijuana. The states voted it in, so take your "Christian" values and respect the rights of the states. Their side sure expects that when it's something they want.
18
Dems are the states rights fans. We had a whole civil war over dems wanting states rights.
"It shouldn’t be necessary or relevant to point out that all three judges were Republican appointees, but in the current climate, sadly, it’s a notable fact."
It's ALWAYS necessary and relevant to point out the background of judges. When will you finally acknowledge the truth of what you have reported and commented on all these years: It's not "law," it's politics.
From the magistrate judges granting warrants and hearing summary judgment motions right up to the nine at the top of the hierarchy – that's how they got there, that's how they choose which issues to call determinative and that's how they decide them.
5
Why should non-citizens, who cannot vote, count toward a state's Congressional representation?
8
There is currently no mention of citizenship in the census, it is a tally of the number of people residing in a state. It includes everyone - citizens, green card holders (who can't vote) H1 adn other visa holders (who can't vote), undocumented residents (who can't vote). The purpose of the census is to determine the number of people living in the country, not the number of citizens.
23
The purpose of the census is to distribute representatives appropriately. Obviously illegal immigrants should have no representation.
Because the Constitution mandates it.
Again, what is it about the Constitution that Repubs find so onerous?
15
We need a new party, one that is anti-illegal immigrant and pro-environment. I'm tired of our quality of life here in CA being dragged down by illegal immigrant rights. In 2015 they got drivers licenses, making traffic and pollution (due to their using older, poor condition cars) exponentially worse. And my car just got hit a third time (while parked with me sitting in it) by an illegal with no drivers license or insurance. He said he just never bothered to get a license even though he could -- breaking the law becomes a way of life for a lot of these people. Calling the cops is pointless because the "sanctuary state" policy prevents them from doing anything about it.
Now we have a movement here - that translates as "Mexican Brotherhood" in English - calling on all Latinos to refuse to cooperate with the police for any reason. Well, if that sounds like building a "gang" style social system, that's because it is. Zero respect for the law. Now a massive movement.
The only reason Democrats support this nonsense is for the votes, because of the size of the population. It's just numbers to them, they don't care about the consequences.
It's just so depressing. I'm not a Republican, but this whole issue has made me definitely not a Democrat either. I'm anti-gun, pro-environment, pro-abortion rights and VERY anti-illegal immigration. So call it whatever you want, but this is my political view as a result of my experience living in California.
12
Maybe then we could get rid of all the other groups you don't like, including the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore...
5
I believe there are lots and lots of folks like you...If Dems embraced a tougher stance on immigration...They’d be doing themselves a huge favor...
3
Love the hypocrisy on both sides. Those who liked Obama using presidential decrees to enact rules to which congress or the states objected; are suddenly outrages when Trump uses presidential decrees to enact rules to enact rules to which congress or the states disagree.
That scene from “Casablanca” where the police chief is outraged to discover gambling in a casino - while cashing his winnings - accurately depicts both political parties.
13
Clearly the author states why California and New York would fight the citizenship question. The Census is a head count. Therefore they actually gain power by the numbers of illegal immigrants within their borders. If this count is depressed they will lose. So the incentive is to count them knowingly because politically they gain.
7
As with many other current issues, a state's rights are in the eye of the beholder.
Or, whose ox is being gored...
13
People want State’s rights when they are mad at the federal government. They believe in federal control when they are in power so they can press their views on others. I have always leaned towards State’s rights because it is another check against tyranny, even though this allows states to do some goofy things. The key here is to figure out the system you want. If you believe in federal control, sooner or later they are going to jam things down your throat you do not like. It is easier to fight your own state than the federal government.
6
Very enlightening opinion piece from Ms. Greenhouse. We are certainly in a civil war with this administration. They don't hesitate to try anything which will shift the voting power from blue states. The extremists in our country will do anything to make America theirs again!
8
I assume that the residents of the blue states can still vote. If we had a better class of voters in this country, they could handle this discrimination problem.
2
" “It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power.”"
Who is doing the usurpation, the executive or judicial branch?
7
The executive branch. Since 1803 the judiciary has ruled on the constitutionality of laws and federal action. That's how our system of government works. The president isn't allowed to violate the constitution, nor is Congress.
11
The function of federal state and local governments now looks like the same as everything Trump has touched during decades of his business dealings: the grey areas get pushed beyond any credible limits, and then there is massive litigation on both sides that consumes huge resources and time. Litigate litigate litigate.
Mountains of lawyers to push the grey areas so hard that it rips the fabric of the country. And the electorate may be too naive to realize the extent of the shredding.
9
What a tremendously eloquent piece. Thank you for sharing this.
13
I've always thought that judicial independence from the political world was extremely important, but with the right no way clearly intent on weaponizing the courts, I know firmly believe that all federal judgeships, including the Supreme Court, should be limited to at least 20 years, if not less.
9
Did not the Civil War answer the the following question: Does federal law reign supreme over state statutes? Concerning federal retainers, it is not a question of the legality of state and local law enforcement holding someone after the individual is released; nor asking local Law Enforcement to do the job of Federal officials, the point: Law enforcement is sworn to uphold and enforce the law, regardless of political persuasion. ICE official request that local enforcement afford them a professional courtesy by informing them when a wanted person will be released. Secondly, the citizenship question will affect California because it would dissuade illegal aliens not to answer the question! Why should California or any other sanctuary state benefit from an illegal population who are here unlawfully. It is unfair because California, will lose federal subsidies and yet refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Is California a state or a sovereign nation; or does it consider itself part of the US only if it benefits them?
11
Well goodness, I don't know what to think. Let's face it -- usually "federalism" is code for "let's authorize states to take something away from people." That has been true ever since federalism was called "states' rights", and what was being taken away was, well, just about everything that we associate with humanity and dignity.
But here, federalism is being offered up as a means to empower states to protect people from the federal government -- or at least to permit states to decline to become bounty hunters for the deportation machine.
What to do? Is there a way to keep the good federalism and get rid of the bad federalism?
3
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground any more. California should do more to limit the influx of illegal immigrants, and should see to it that many of them go home. Instead you have "round 'em all up and send 'em home" vs. "let them all stay", neither of which is a reasonable thing to do.
If we can't veer back towards the middle, that cold civil war could morph into a hot civil war. It has a long way to go before it gets there, but it is going in that direction.
7
>>> "California should do more to limit the influx of illegal immigrants, and should see to it that many of them go home."
Neither of those are functions of state government.
8
The silver lining in our 16 month Trump government debacle is our third leg, the courts. I have appreciated our system more than ever as Trump has attempted to crush our system of the rule of laws like no other before him. Congress is a collection of the weak, while the Presidency represents the ability of incompetency to misdirect our Nation's best intentions of the past century.
9
"states where high tax rates support decent public services."
Except that isn't the case. The people paying the high taxes in those states are not the ones benefitting from outrageous government employee salaries and pensions and the out of control welfare state. California is one of the highest taxed states, and pays near the top in teacher salaries. Yet, it is ranked #46 in the quality of public education. Paying $40k a year in California income tax, then having to pay another $20,000 per year for each of your kids to go to private school because you live in Los Angeles is no bargain. It is a rip off. Plus crime in most California cities is not low either. Some cities' police don't even respond to non-emergencies.
Why put up with that when you can live in Plano, Allen, Frisco, McKinney, or Southlake Texas, pay no state income tax, have great schools, very low crime, and a very efficient government.
"it also seeks to punish cities and states that resist"
Federalism is a two-way street. The answer is simple: Don't accept federal money.
8
I was just in Austin, Texas for a a week. For the life of me I could not think of one service that the government of NYC provides that is superior to that provided in Austin.
3
Real estate taxes in Austin are very high. The sales tax is very high. Homeowners in each of Texas’s largest 4 cities will face the same burdens vis-a-vis the new federal tax law as will homeowners in CA, NY, and other blue states.
2
Don't accept Federal money? but California pays more than its fair share to the federal government, and more than it receives. It has the sixth largest economy in the world and the federal government desperately needs that income. I'm OK with California not getting any federal money providing it gets to keep its own income for the benefit of Californians.
24
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, for telling it like it is, which you always do! It is so vital to have this important information available to any public interested in the theft of our country on multiple fronts.
9
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for using the term "civil war." And the war once again, is over Lincoln's question. For today, while the de jure viewpoint might say otherwise, the de facto government is one of the ultrawealthy, by the ultrawealthy, for the ultrawealthy. While the many battles and fronts -- caps on property taxes, over sanctuary cities, the census -- might appear to be unrelated, they are stem from the theft of government from we the people. What is amazing is so many of the people have acquiesced in that theft.
Because this war has no geographical boundaries, it is not clear how it is going to be resolved any time soon. At the same time, I see no evidence that the left, which is the side trying to represent the 99.99%, has the means or even the will power for a sustained multi-decade fight.
10
California has a clear incentive to violate Federal law by inviting illegal "immigrants" to enter and stay. And the state knows it. That's what this Census fight is all about.
The Census counts all heads -- belonging to citizens or illegal "immigrants". Makes no difference in the count. A head is a head. The number of heads determines how many congressional districts the state gets. The more illegal "immigrants", the more heads, the more congressional seats.
What happens if a question about citizenship is asked on the Census? Oh no, some illegal "immigrants" may be deterred from getting counted. If they don't get counted, there's one less head in the state. Enough uncounted heads and, poof, fewer congressional districts. Fewer districts means less clout for the state. In a Blue state, like California, less clout, means less clout for the Democratic party. They don't like that.
If you wonder why the Democrats favor illegal "immigrants" and, by golly, want every last one counted, it's because they want the power that comes with it.
As long as they can represent the Third World, Democrats want it ALL to come in. And they want it all counted in the Census.
15
Have you considered that California really needs immigrants to sustain its economy? The majority of Americans depend on food grown in California.
9
Ah, the radical leftist states like Tennessee.
"ICE raids Grainger County meatpacking plant amid charges owners avoided $2.5M in payroll taxes"
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/05/ice-raids-meatpacki...
And Iowa - one of Trump's first acts in office was to commute the sentence of an Iowa man who'd been employing lots of illegal workers: "His prosecution came after federal authorities staged a dramatic raid on the company's Iowa plant in 2008, arriving by helicopter and detaining 389 illegal immigrants, including children.
The 57-year-old father of 10 submitted fake invoices to a bank that made Agriprocessors' finances appear healthier than they were so that it could borrow more."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/21/trump-commutes-sentence-meatp...
5
The Constitution mandates that ALL persons be enumerated.
What is it about the Constitution that Repubs have so much trouble following?
14
The executive overreach issues will present another telling test for newly-minted Justice Gorsuch, who prides himself on being bright, analytical and principled. If he has problems with expansive interpretations of vague statutory terms, what will he do with the executive branch inventing new legal requirements out of whole cloth? Trump would be on safer political ground appointing as judges more mediocrities like Alito, guys who are just smart enough to memorize and articulate the web of ideology but not quite capable of seeing through it.
15
It is long overdue for the Feds to step up this game with the states. They should end the penny ante threats to withhold Federal grant money and move on to filing some felony charges against elected officials presiding over the Sanctuary movement. They should start with Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, the lookout who sounded the warning of an impending ICE raid. They should charge a few state level politicians as well. What charges:
"Harboring" illegal aliens, "Inducing illegal residency" and "Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting". Here are the statutes.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1...
13
Humanity should be a part of law. A strict interpretation of the law does not take into consideration that circumstances change. Sometimes you have to use common sense in interpreting a statue and sometimes that law must be changed. To punish kids who only know the US as their home and, through no fault of their own, were brought here is cruel. Sending them back to a country where they do not speak the language nor know the customs is just plain mean. Put yourself in their shoes for one day and think how you would feel.
20
Civil War?
Give it twenty years. When the court has veered to far from the existential needs of its citizenry. Then you can predict true civil war?
In the mean time we can work to rectify imbalances at the state and local level.
But remember, climate change is coming. We are going to need figure out how to work together and in a hurry,
Existential Struggle?
8
This column is spot on except for one troubling issue. Voting citizens in States with a higher proportion of undocumented immigrants have greater representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College than do voting citizens in States with a lower proportion of undocumented immigrants. This undermines the concept of equal representation for each citizen. The proposed citizenship question on the census is an attempt to restore equal representation, regardless of Trump's motives.
8
You forget the elephant in the room. Tiny population states like Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska (all under 800,000 people, total) have disproportionate representation in Congress and the Electoral College because no matter how small their population, citizen or not, they still get 2 Senators and a least 1 House Representative. Compare that to the 38 million in California, 26 million in Texas and 20 million in New York. This is not an attempt to restore equal representation by any means. It is solely to punish "Blue" States.
38
Congressional representation isn't even theoretically based on the number of CITIZENS in a state. It's based on the number of PEOPLE in a state.
(Of course, as BCasero points out, the federal Constitution, gerrymandering and urbanization/urban clustering conspire to give the nearly empty states much more representation in proportion to actual population numbers.)
8
Perhaps they could count them as 3/5 of a person. Been there, done that. It ended with the last civil war.
1
"After President Trump signed the new tax bill into law, capping the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT deduction) at $10,000, politicians in California and New York scrambled to propose workarounds. That effort fizzled; seemingly, there aren’t any. Nor is there any visible path to the courthouse to challenge a cynical but perfectly legal act of Congress."
There may be a constitutional pathway to challenging to capping the SALT deduction . . .
Besides the obvious but weak states' rights argument a Due Process argument based on the Equal Protection Clause may be available. The disparate impact of the SALT deduction caps -- NY, NJ, CA, for example -- raises the specter of the unequal treatment of American citizens based upon the political-party affiliation of their state of residence.
In Bolling v. Sharpe, a school desegregation case, the Supreme Court held that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive. Applying a similar line of reasoning to the SALT deduction caps in the GOP tax bill, I think an argument can be made that the Due Process Clause prohibits the federal government from discriminating against citizens of New York, New Jersey, California, etc, as the GOP tax bill would do.
Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
15
Actually, since the SALT limitation applies to both income and property taxes, it hits more states than you would think. I saw a list of the top 10 most affected cities in the country. Four were in Red state Texas. Texas doesn't have an income tax but it does have a high property tax and some quite pricey houses.
10
"the Equal Protection Clause"
If that were the case, then no one should be allowed to deduct any state or local tax, nevermind the cap.
Equal protection would mean the feds are blind to state and local taxes.
6
equal protection means equal benefit of the laws. not a detriment to some, a benefit to others . . .
1
As usual, its Leftist politics.
When the Constitution clearly give the Federal government powers, as for Immigration ... the Leftists want power for the states.
When the 10th Amendment clearly applies, as in abortion, gun laws, drinking age laws, how Presidential Electors are chosen, the Leftists don't like it and want the Federal government to take power.
They want ALL power, no matter what.
14
Democrats- disregard federalism until it is politically relevant
9
And republicans fight for state rights until it doesn't suit the. It works both ways.
6
Analyses like these that actually break down what Trump and his administration are doing to take apart the United States are so important and need to be read and understood by thinking, open-minded people in every state. Those who are violent Trump supporters are not going to listen to any of this. Their hero in the White House, they think and feel, is doing exactly what he promised to do=shake things up. But it has gone beyond the shake-up phase straight into destruction of the separation of powers, the rule of law, Congressional oversight, the functions of all of our cabinet agencies, the DOJ and the FBI. If Americans don't start paying attention to what the Trump Administration is really doing behind the daily chaos, soon, there will not be any reason to pay attention.
20
Concerning SALT taxes in New York:
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-bill-protect-new-y...
It is humorous if not a bit unreal to watch the liberal democrats and progressive put illegal aliens and their so called rights ahead of US citizens, the law, and the constitution. They are not undocumented or economic migrants, they are illegal aliens who have broken federal law by illegally crossing the border. As such they should be immediately deported. There are too many waiting in line to enter the country legally so line jumpers will not be tolerated. The democrats only want selective law enforcement, too bad.
13
There is no such thing as an "otherwise law abiding" illegal alien, a category liberals believe exists. It is illegal for an illegal alien to work in this country. Any doing so are committing at least a couple more criminal offenses. If they are working on the books, they are doing so by using a forged Social Security card and they perjured themselves to complete an I-9 form. If they are working off the books, they are failing to pay state and Federal taxes.
12
Blue state Governors unabashedly encourage illegal immigrants to violate Federal law.
Can they encourage us Blue staters to also violate Federal law and refuse to pay Federal taxes?
Will they shield us from the IRS as they shield illegals from ICE?
8
This is what we get for not enforcing immigration and employment law for thirty years.
14
Why are the Blue States still paying taxes into the Federal Treasury? Is this not taxation without representation?
Cut off the Federal government and their Red State lobbyists. They're using our money against us.
12
The citizenship question was commonly asked on censuses until 1960. Illegal immigrants are unlikely to comply with the census-takers anyway since they know they have no legal right to be here. But even if this partisan hysteria were true, the question would hurt red states like Texas and Arizona as well as California.
The author also omits that deportation rates are way down from the height of the Obama era. ICE is deporting about half as many people as it was in 2012. The headlines exist because like the author, the media is partisan and both ignored the ugly reality of deportation when their guy was in office. If you don't like the law, you could change it. But the crux of the problem is that open borders is a woefully unpopular policy that pits the native-born working-class against immigrants and the world has no shortage of poor unskilled people who would like to live here.
I'd love to live in France or Canada. Unfortunately for me, and unfortunately for these wouldbe Americans, it's not that easy.
21
Local law enforcement, thousands upon thousands of jurisdictions, could refuse to aid the federal authorities in civil(?) law enforcement of thousands upon thousands of things.
1
Local jurisdictions have limited resources. The feds are not paying to add requirements to the locals. Locals have to determine the best use of funds, which is why they are usually left alone in how they do it.
5
A clearer bell for state's rights could not have been rung!
2
I once respected Republicans as honorable concerned citizens whose views should be given serious thoughts. But no more,l now see consumers of political fast food served up with a side of bile.
14
Our Constitution was ratified 230 years ago and to this day, there has always been and always will be an argument as to where federal authority begins and ends.
It would be nice to say that the argument was always done in a court of law, but such is not the case.
So lets hope that we can settle this one in such a manner.
3
It is ironic that all that was necessary to make some liberals get in touch with their inner John C. Calhoun was to put Trump in the White House.
More reasonable people knew that Obama wasn't going to be the last president, so supporting an unhindered federal government wasn't really a wise move.
12
Two things:
First the author grossly mischaracterizes the New York case. That was a case in which the federal government was attempting to legislate in an area reserved to the states - the general police power, if memory serves. They cannot "commandeer" the states constitutional power or enforcement apparatus. That doesn't mean that they can't use or traverse state courtrooms or facilities - an absurd equivocation on part of the author. Additionally, the federal government may legislate on issues constitutionally reserved for the federal government - offthe top of my head, immigration and interstate commerce. As those two provisions give the federal government a mandate they absolutely are correct in requiring reporting incident to normal state police activities.
The concern for constitutional balance of powers seems not a little disingenious considering the silence of this paper on the many and varied overreaches of Messr. Obama and Co., and the constitutional travesty that is the administrative state. (Under current law you are not entitled to an Art. 3 judge for regulatory offenses generally. Instead you get a agency judge who hears your case brought by that agency, whi assesses your penalty underthe regulationsthat are written by - you guessed it - the enforcing agency.) But, hey, Trump is the AntiChrist so any tactic is permitted.
8
Your second point is a false equivalence of false equivalences. Obama was not even close to the Antichrist, whereas Trump is.
1
Agreed. Its a civil war. But just like the previous one, this one's also rooted in racism. When our founders didn't include PoC and women in the "All men are created equal" phrase that underlies our constitution our fate was sealed. The history of America has been one long fight to correct that catastrophic wrong.
7
In the santuary cities dispute, it should be fun to watch Gorsuch squirm. He claims to be a "federalist"---i.e., protector of states' rights--- but he'll want to to vote the Republican Party line.
15
There is absolutely no "State's right" to get enmeshed in immigration matters. Arizona got slapped back when they tried to enforce immigration law. California, Illinois, Connecticut and other states should be slapped back even harder for attempting to thwart immigration law enforcement.
8
I remember William H. Rehnquist and Donald Trump is no William H. Rehnquist. There is no flip flop or reversal of polarities when Trump never was a federalist.
More troubling is Linda Geenhouse's coyness about her own position.Has she converted to federalism? Take JFK's "commandeering" of the Alabama National Guard in 1963. By Executive Order 11111 he authorized the Secretary of Defense to call up the Guard and for it to use force, if necessary, to compel the integration of the University of Alabama.
The intervention forced Gov. Wallace to back off. Black students duly registered for classes. All of us can rejoice in that outcome -- but what about JFK's MEANS -- commandeering the Alabama National Guard? Was that proper or improper?
Greenhouse wants to have it both ways. When the commandeering will bring about the result she wants, she's for it. When commandeering will bring about a result she disagrees with, she's against it. That pretty much defines Greenhoue's unprincipled jurisprudence on issue after issue.
7
The President, as commander-in-chief of the military
has the ability to call up the National Guard.
National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.
If the President tried to command the State Police, that would be an improper action.
13
From the WaPo: "The state of California has rejected the terms of the Trump administration’s initial request to deploy National Guard troops along the border with Mexico,..., the latest sign of persistent tension with the White House over immigration enforcement.
The troops in California are under the command of Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who last week said he would send up to 400 personnel in a limited role.
Just how limited became clearer Monday after California’s National Guard told Homeland Security officials the state will not allow soldiers to do the types of things they’re doing elsewhere on the border: monitoring surveillance cameras, performing maintenance and transporting U.S. border agents."
I wonder whose side in this dispute Linda Greenhouse is on.
One of the more fascinating words I learned in grade school, from the nuns during the Great depression of the thirties, was the word "ignominious." They used it to characterize the people who wanted to crucify Jesus Christ. As I remember the definition. it meant disgraceful, mortifying. And these other words also applied: humiliating, undignified, embarrassing, ignoble, inglorious, shameful, dishonorable. Simply put one who is ignominious is deserving of public disgrace and shame.
Everyday now we are reading of someone in this administration bringing to mind the word ignominious, whether it is toward immigrants, toward democrats, toward citizens, toward voters. toward blacks, toward women, toward the poor. Nowhere except maybe in the Pentagon are we seeing rational leadership. How much more are the American people being asked to bear? Will we have to sit idly by while we watch the freedoms and rights belonging to every citizen to be eroded out from under us by an anomaly being spawned by this president and his administration? The whole idea behind this country is the balance of power between a President, a Congress and a Supreme Court. It worked for 240 years.
Why isn't it working now?
3
The Right has been fomenting this New Civil War for many, many decades. The continuous thread can be traced through:
- McCarthyism
- Nixon's Southern Strategy
- Lee Atwater's politics of personal destruction
- the Willie Horton ad campaign
- Newt Gingrich's obstructionism
- The Moral Majority and the Culture Wars
- Limbaugh, Beck, D'Souza, Coulter, Drudge, Breitbart, Hannity, et al
- Bush's (and Palin's) "If you're not with us, you're against us."
- Birtherism
- Republican gerrymandering
- McConnell's "One-term president" tactics; and his theft of a Supreme Court seat.
- Trumpism
Go read the comments posted on Fox News, the Federalist, and even the Wall Street Journal, and you'll readily see how rabidly the Right views all of this as one overall Civil War for their view of what America "really" stands for. It's been boiling under the surface for decades; Trumpism has simply lanced the boil and drawn the pus to the surface.
America survived our first Civil War. We survived McCarthyism and Watergate. We were torn apart by Vietnam and the reaction against the Civil Rights movement; but we survived.
But unless we start getting some Republicans to stand up to the Radical right and start putting country before power-hungry partisanship, I don't see how we'll be able to keep America together....
23
Sorry Linda,
beg to differ,
give my regards to Madison High School in Brooklyn,
in our republican democracy the Democrats once again need candidates and programs that have national appeal.
NOT Civil War.
6
In the current environment, it does seem as if the red states' rights are almost infinite while the blue states' are almost non-existent. Why is that?
9
I don't understand. If you found the Rehnquist federalism so "unsettling," why are you so anxious for a return to it?
Doesn't it expose the situational principles of public persons when out of power?
3
Hmm.... So the great centers of Socialism, like NY, CA, MA, etc re all in favor of big Federal government telling them what to do. As long as it's what they want to do? But if they don't like it they don't think they have to do it? Sounds rather puerile to me.
Many states did not want to implement ACA when it was passed. Yet they did follow the law of the land while they pursued their legal options. Let's not forget that these immigration laws are not something new like ACA was, they've been on the book for years.
Just ignored.
Maybe it's time American's speak with their wallets. I think boycotting those States is a great beginning.
7
The SCOTUS held (with some liberal votes, as I remember), that states did not have to accept the Medicaid expansion in the ACA.The theory was that the states could not be forced to implement a federal program. Similarly, the states should not have to enforce federal immigration law. Your post would be more convincing if you knew what you were talking about.
11
The increasing partisan rhetoric regarding the American court system is the single most concerning aspect of the Trump presidency. These courts are the independent check to both Congress and the White House. I worry when justices choose dogma over precedent. This June's rulings will be a tell-tale sign of what is to come for our republic.
2
The question of limitations of deductions for state and local taxes would seem to be ripe for the Supreme Court.
The power to tax is the power to destroy the Court held in Bank of the United States. It would seem clear that the United States may not attack any state or group of them through tax policy.
2
Why is this an attack on blue states ?
They can do whatever they want, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
It’s not fair of them to force other states’ residents to pay for it
6
Actually the blue states were subsidizing federal expenses for the red states even before this. This is an increase in those subsidies.
1
"force other states' residents to pay for it". This is this biggest lie in this debate. California already contributes more than any "low tax" state, no matter how you slice it - per capita, or total. Now we're getting squeezed for even more, so that these moocher states can be subsidized by CA and other states whose residents are willing to pay taxes for having civilization. The genius of this enormous giveaway to the mega-rich is that it pits groups of middle class suckers against each other.
2
It's interesting to see demands for "states rights" coming from this segment of the political spectrum. Will the elite media soon be insisting that New York and California have the right to secede, following the example of South Carolina in 1861?
I note that Jerry Brown frequently compares California's GNP favorably with that of other countries, so perhaps he thinks that it has happened already.
5
ERP Vermont: Jerry Brown has more brains in one finger than you and your small-state GOP cohorts have all put together. Jerry knows we are not a separate country, he is well aware of the pitfalls of secession. Currency and defense just to name two. Jerry's point is that the GNP and the population of a SINGLE state (whatever its leanings) ought to give that state some clout.
4
Greenhouse is a consistent promoter of using the Federal Judiciary as the agent for the imposition of Totalitarian Socialism. Now that states like California are openly refusing to comply with federal law. she is in the same position as Governor Wallace standing at the schoolhouse doors in Alabama. It's inherently contradictory and rationally impossible for her to occupy both places at the same time.
My solution is to get rid of the federal judiciary. Un-elected, un-accountable, un-American. Let state courts with elected, term-limited, politically accountable judges make these political decisions.
4
I would rather call it an uncivil war.
A war on victims. A war on women. A war on kids (except the unborn). A war on other races. A war on the poor. A war on the planet itself (one we can't win unless we work together).
Working together for the common good? What's that?
The criminalization of democracy and poverty proceeds apace.
The stealing of elections is gathering strength, hacking, suppression, intimidation, and outright cheating. Judges and local authorities who won't uphold the law, even with a court judgment, are on the rise.
14
About those kids: a war on the unarmed and underarmed, including police officers and roadrage victims. Anyone who angers somebody with a killing machine is in danger. We must submit!
2
Time and again, this Congress has failed to act in situations which are in their purview. From waging war (Gulf of Tonkin), to immigration, to tariffs to commerce, all these are for the legislative branch, not the executive branch to decide. But for more than 50 years now, we've had a Congress that fails to do it's job. From the heady and wonderful days of the civil rights movement in Alabama and elsewhere, the executive branch has been abdicating it's responsibility. I do not take that lightly.
8
Yes, there is a war going on. The author however misses the real problem, which is inequality. What's discussed here resides in the divide and conquer playbook and masks the real issue. The rise of divisions that the author speaks of correlates well with our postmodern inequality. I don't think this a casual relationship, it was a well thought-out and coordinated change meant to bolster inequality in the West.
5
I live in New York but I have long wondered why we could deduct state and local taxes when other states effectively get no similar deduction since they have no state taxes. Honestly, the fewer deductions the better. It is not a war on blue states but a move toward more equal taxation across states. If the issue then is that New York gets less back from the government than does Texas - and this is the case - that is a different issue.
4
"I live in New York but I have long wondered why we could deduct state and local taxes ..."
-------
The reason is because there is a general philosophy against double taxation on the same income.
The same philosophy explains why heirs get a stepped-up basis on appreciated assets: Because those assets were included in the valuation of the prior estate and subject to estate tax there. (Of course, there is a large estate tax exemption, so taxes may not have been due, but that doesn't change the fact that they were subject to it.)
4
Dick, if you are correct, then we have to ask strenuously why Hillary Clinton is not President. The United States may have a good deal of contention because of our levels of government; federal, state, and local, but our nation is large and diverse. The states have different priorities and concerns, as localities do. And in the past, the states have served the nation as a whole as laboratories for policy experimentation. Whether you accept any of this or not, you are suggesting here that we do away with our federal system, since state at local taxation is a large part of the political power that is the reality of that system.
3
The title of this piece is compelling, but the focus of the article is not.
I'm in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, and I'm a far lefty who voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general.
But I'm all for the crackdown on sanctuary cities and states, which defy immigration law.
And the American people are with me. 63% of Americans favor reducing ***legal*** immigration by ***at least*** half, to half a million or fewer, according to a Harvard(University)-Harris poll. A plurality, 35%, that manifests among Hispanics, Blacks, and caucasians, would prefer no more than 250,000.
18
This piece clearly lays out why crackdowns on cities and states DO violate the law. What we need is common sense immigration reform by Congress, not this patchwork of actions by presidents and bureaus overstepping their powers. What's been in the way for decades of passing reform is the severe right turn in the GOP. If it weren't for the that, reform would have been passed under GWB.
19
Funny that someone posting under the name of the first Italian American Governor of MA. should want to pull up the drawbridge. Do you really believe that two and a half football stadiums is a fair limit for immigration? (Here in Michigan we figure roughly 100,000 per stadium) Are you going to tell me that this huge country can't even handle five stadiums worth? It needs to be increased, not decreased.
4
I'm not sure what kind of progressive would actually refer to himself or herself as a "far lefty," which is usually a pejorative term used by Republicans. I'm also not sure what kind of "far lefty" gets his or her information from a Trump White House press secretary, who mischaracterized the Harvard-Harris poll you seem to be talking about. The poll itself has also been criticized by other universities and pollsters as using poor methodology, forcing participants to choose between extreme positions.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-pol...
This seems to be the latest craze. Trolls touting various extreme right positions are going around on center or liberal leaning publications and saying..."Look! I'm one of you, but I believe [insert Trump position]" Then they recommend their own comments using sock puppet accounts.
5
NYC out of USA
3
It would be the USA's loss.
1
Once corporations became people (with "sincerely held religious beliefs"!) and money became speech, the coup-for that's what it is-was well underway.
42
Jeff Sessions was always a devoted defender of "states rights" back in the days when the federal government wanted to enforce a citizen's right to vote or attend a integrated public school. In fact some southerners spoke of Mr. Sessions as a great man of principle and legal reasoning who was standing up for the law and unchanging southern values. He spoke of long held and almost sacred views on states rights.
Jeff is arguing the opposite now in regard to "sanctuary cities" and marijuana. So much for long held principles. I guess long held legal principles and values are like a coat. You can take them off and put them on as the situation demands. Is it unusual that many people think that southern republican politicians are hypocrites.?
24
And the left was a devoted defender of Federal Supremacy when the same sex marriage controversy raged, yet claims State's Rights when it comes to marijuana laws. Is it unusual that many people think that liberal Democratic politicians are hypocrites.?
7
Apparently hypocrisy is just another component of the republican party.
The former speaker of the House, John Boehner of Ohio was an ardent opponent of legalizing marijuana.
Now that he needs a real job, he became the U.S. marijuana industry newest spokesman.
This is after saying nine years ago that he was “unalterably opposed” to legalization.
His views apparently "evolved" once he was off the public payroll.
I can guarantee that if Jeff Sessions was on chemotherapy, his views on marijuana would similarly "evolve".
6
The SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was a long-overdue look at the issue from the POV of one of our fundamental rights as outlined in the constitution. See Amendment 14. Since marriage is a contractual agreement between two individual parties, denying all the benefits of marriage to two people who desire the contract but are of the same gender denies them "equal protection." Individual state laws concerning the legality of marijuana do not fall into constitutional coverage.
1
It will be interesting to see how the courts react to Governor Andrew Cuomo issuance of a cease-and-desist order to Federal immigration authorities conducting their lawful mandate to identify and hold accountable undocumented foreign nationals living illegally within the United States of America.
8
California is a state that has lost its way. My beloved state and home has turned into a dysfunctional one party nightmare. My pride for the "Golden State" is at an all time low. If California could elect representatives based on an electoral college basis, we would have a balanced approach to the needs of its residents. Instead, we have domineering, self serving didactic super power which is deceitful and corrupt. What part of "illegal alien" does the author not understand? And protecting illegal criminals is supposedly in my best interests? NOT!!
14
The rule of law also protects every person, even ones here illegally.
You better believe your best interests are served when the Constitution of the United States is adhered to, even when it's for "those people" you seem to despise so much.
50
Mike, it is uncomfortable when your party is out of power. Or in the case of the Republican Party in California, irrelevant. However, calling the current government in California "deceitful and corrupt", is beyond the pale. You don't agree with the policies coming out of Sacramento. Fine.
You will perhaps not be surprised to hear that I think the real domineering, self-serving, and corrupt (not to mention incompetent) disaster is sitting in the White House at the moment. Or rather tweeting in the White House, no doubt. I must add, however, that I don't think any government anywhere that is so thoroughly dominated by one party is good for the governed. The Republican Party in California had better get its act together. It's barely on life support now.
3
Respectfully suggest Mike Martin should relocate to a state better suited to his values. I personally could never live in the south-- due to the stunning difference between my values and those of the people who live there. If I moved there for some job issue for instance, I would move back to CA, stat. In other words, vote with your feet. As far as the EC-- no other election in this nation is held to this antiquated standard. The election of any local City Clerk for instance, is majority. So should that of the Presidency.
2
The Republican belief in states' rights and individual rights is hooey. The erratic untethered Trump Republican party no longer has any legitimate guiding principles. Their only consistent themes are white nationalist demagogy, racial resentment, the ideals expressed in the "Handmaid's Tale," and the greater adulation of Mr. Trump. To that end, they seek unlimited power for the federal executive branch, via a servile Republican Congress and a pliant Supreme Court. The Congress has already abandoned its Constitutional oversight duties, and it looks like the acquiescent Supreme Court is preparing to do the same. Make no mistake. Mr. Trump and his brownnosers and bootlickers are going after an enemies list that includes Trump's critics, the regions that did not vote for him, and the states that refuse him his vile white nationalist agenda.
21
The conservative part of SCOTUS operates via the same cognitive dissonance as Evangelicals. Both are willing to allow the trampling of what they are supposed to hold sacred in the hopes that it will empower what they hold sacred.
I am an atheist--God help us.
13
"... using the revenue gained thereby to benefit the poor and middle class?"
Excuse me, I am assuming you expect the current administration and house to carry this out.
Best joke of the day!
5
This sounds so much like the fugitive slave act of 1850 which required that officials and citizens of northern states had to actively participate in the capture and return of escaped slaves. As your article's title refers to a new civil war, it's interesting that the fugitive slave act (a legal compromise between slave holding and free states) was basically the federal government forcing local governments to do their bidding.
"The only conduct at issue here is the refusal of the local law enforcement to aid in civil immigration enforcement through informing the federal authorities when persons are in their custody and providing access to those persons at the local law enforcement facility.”
6
Sorry, but progressive and productive do go together. Check out the GPI of progressive California vs your own dear state. That’s what so interesting about conservatives like yourself- you think you have a right not only to your opinions, but to your own facts. In reality this is called “lying.” Trump is definitely the right president for folks like you.
11
Dem Presidents assert Exec power, red states (GOP) object claiming states rights. GOP Presidents assert Exec power, blue states (Dems) object claiming states rights. This problem is then amplified by the hypocrisy of biased judges and courts. It should be a very clear legal question -- whether the Constitution permits the President and federal government to exert power over the states on this particular issue consistent with the Constitution. If a judge with GOP bias (or point of view) claims states rights wins on only Dem issues, and then same court/judge rules federal power wins over states only on GOP issues, and vice versa with Dem judges, then we, the people, are all screwed in the end. These are not political questions, they are legal questions, and our system should not work this way, and yet, it does, over and over again. And, the reader comments so far reflect the same biases issue to issue, as we tend to bring to bear in every subject these days....
9
I seem to recall the Feds telling Arizona they couldn’t write their own immigration laws.
12
Writing immigration laws is different than the issue at hand. CA and other states are not writing laws on it. States have the right to use their resources as they see fit. And the federal government can't tell them where to put those resources.
That was determined by the court decision that states did not have to allow the ACA in the states that didn't want it.
Texas has the worse health care and largest amount of uninsured people in the country. Yet there is nothing the federal government can do to make Texas to spend money on health care.
2
"Whether the new law might have the unintended effect of driving productive, progressive and mobile millennials from high-tax states and thus “turn Texas blue” — delicious thought — remains to be seen."
If progressives think having state and local governments provide exorbitant services is a good idea, shouldn't they want to stay in those states and pay for those services ?
The author seems to be implying that progressives love high taxes as long as they don't have to pay for them.
*That* is exactly what is wrong with progressives.
They want all kinds of spending but want someone else to pay for it.
7
This from a Republican, whose party just passed a tax law that will result in yearly deficits of a trillion dollars. Who is going get the bill for that, G? Future Americans. It really is rich -- a guy like this telling us what is wrong with "Progressives". Republicans would not agree to deficit spending when the economy was in serious trouble -- when we needed it. Now that we have a growing economy and full employment, they are all for it. This is known as hypocrisy on steroids. And that's what's wrong with -- whatever these Republicans are. They're not conservatives, that's for sure. They're not really interested in conserving anything. Except white male privilege.
7
Dear NYT:
Your columnist is again betraying the deeply rooted biases that animated her legal analysis as a NYT Supreme Court reporter, and -- alas -- she again displays the lack of insight, muddy prose and knack for the cliche that marked her earlier work product.
Start with the hoary and misleading metaphor of a "civil war," lard on disparate partisan illustrations that go nowhere, and conclude with the impressive sounding, empty notion of a "federalism revolution in reverse."
The federal government has a long history of putting strings on grant money. This is all really just some activist judges throwing sand in the gears of a federal effort they dislike.
We get it -- she hates Trump. Get in line. But please spare us the sophomoric history lessons.
13
Actually, Jorge, you have betrayed your lack of understanding of what this article actually says in your comment. The issue here is not about "grant money". Read the article. It is about federal law enforcement forcing states to do its bidding. You betray your bias by using the phrase "activist judges". Read The Constitution. The Judicial Branch of our government is an equal to the Executive Branch.
8
It's obvious that our evolution as a society and as a country are stinted by partisan ideologies. I would hope that this point in our growth we could look at what is best for the country rather than dredging up ancient concepts like the civil war with connotations of apartheid.
If states what to be safe zones or sanctuaries then that is on them. The federal government should not fund these activities. If the states' citizens vote to support this sanctuary, let them fund it. I support states sovereignty and their rights to self determination.
This nonsense that any administration is squeaky-clean is absurd. Politics is all about power from any club or lever available. They have ALL used fiscal pressure to gain control... and they will all continue to use whatever means at hand to do what they want... Does anyone remember the Patriot Act?
5
So why should these states then pay federal taxes if they receive nothing in return for them?
The states don't pay federal taxes, the citizens pay the taxes. And all citizens have to file tax returns and obey tax laws.
In 1957 President Eisenhower sent federal troops to integrate Little Rock Central High School- an action based on The SCOTUS decision Brown vs. Topeka making it law to integrate public schools.
Until Trump's "red" leaning administrative policies become law through their attending court challenges, the states are under no obligation to support enforcement of said policies.
The source of the current "civil war" exist between red people/regions and blue people/regions and is tragically based on the predelictions of this county's original civil war.
America's balcanization accelerated with Pres. Reagan's termination of The Fairness Doctrine, and is further exacerbated by social media's algo-rhythm and biased so called "news" feeds. This echo-chambers many weaker minds to combustion. Sic; 1994 Rwandan genocide conflagrated by extreme talk radio broadcasts to Hutu & Tusti locals.
American society is at a perilous point and we have an immense and existential task to unite and sustain our nation. Peace through more education and realization that before we are white or black, Christian or Muslim, male or female, we are first and foremost human beings and are of dependent origin.
12
Your bias is sickening. You had no problem with Obama forcing schools to stop suspending minorities, or forcing colleges to hold all accused men guilty of rape, or forcing states to expand Medicare and Medicaid, or forcing environmental regulations on states... but when a Republican does the same you have an issue. Disgusting
8
How did Obama force states to expand Medicare (???) and Medicaid?
No one was 'forced' to take the Medicaid expansion, which is why a number of states did not take it.
12
Yes they did try but the Supreme Court ruled they could not force them to do it. You need to read up on this.
States do not have a right to violate federal immigration laws!!!
6
"States do not have a right to violate federal immigration laws!!!"
Obama confirmed that when he sued Arizona for trying to enforce newly passed state immigration laws. Only the federal government has jurisdiction over the immigration process.
2
Sanctuary states, counties, and municipalities. Lawsuits with friendly federal district courts issuing national injunctions against executive orders. Active thwarting of federal law enforcement (i.e. Mayor Schaaf in Oakland).
And the inability of the federal government to use funding to coerce state cooperation has now been reaffirmed.
Democrats have done more in 18 month to advance states’ rights and undermine federal authority than Republicans did in 18 years.
When a Democrat is back in the White House, even more extensive and creative forms of “resistance” will be utilized by Republicans in red states. Moreover, they will cover a much broader range of issues including environmental regulations, gun laws, taxation, LGBT rights, and much more.
The final stop on this journey will be the dissolution of the United States. At least it will be a peaceful process, because citizens will simply be too exhausted and indifferent to oppose it.
Sad for Americans, but Russia and China will certainly cheer.
7
Let it burn. There are two fundamentally different Americas today; short of an armed invasion, I don't think the two sides will ever be reconciled
4
Liberals jumping onto the states-rights bandwagon should be careful what they wish for.
9
Conservatives jumping on the federal bandwagon at this late date show their utter hypocrisy.
4
More essential, uniquely valuable analysis and reporting by Linda Greenhouse!
We the People cannot do without her clear thinking and energetic pursuit of stories behind the story, particularly in re federal-state relations.
3
I don't get why illegal or even legal non-citizens would count toward Congressional seats.
4
They count because the Constitution prescribes it:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
~Article I, Section 2
It doesn't say anything about citizenship or residency status. It merely refers to the number of residents.
11
Because the constitution requires all people be counted not just citizens, eligible to vote etc
9
You have an unprincipled politically motivated majority in charge of the Court right now who seem to care less about their own and the Court’s legacy. See, e.g., Citizens United, Shelby County.
4
The comments offer valid arguments but fail on two points: first, it is the federal government's responsibility to protect the borders, indeed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a federal agency, second, the substance of the ban is that the countries on the ban list provide terrorism that has been hurting the country hence the ban, but if their citizens happen to be Muslims, do we have to afford them the same rights as us the citizens and do we have to place their rights above the safety and security of the country at the same time making the issue of the ban a religious one?
2
15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians.
Where were all these concerns about tyranny when President Obama and his appointees were running rickshaw over the Constitution?
Some examples:
A mandate that forced people to buy health insurance.
Recess appointments to the Labour Board.
The Clean Power plan.
If one wants to fix a broken politics, everyone needs to see the world with eyes wide open, as President Macron scolded yesterday.
8
Your examples, whether or not they relate to important issues, *do not* relate to the constitutional questions of state & local vs. federal authority, and separation-of-powers issues at the federal level, that the author addresses here.
Apples and oranges.
8
Tyranny is tyranny.
It’s running roughshod not rickshaw. The substance of your remarks are equally wrong.
4
Worthwhile column, but the comments are even more illuminating. They reveal how deeply divided we are as a nation. Unfortunately, our divisions are not neatly geographical, as they would supply an easy solution, the one the South sought in the real Civil War--two separate nations.
Clearly, there are millions of Americans who would prefer the America of the 1950s or even the 1850s. Mostly old, white, and poorly educated. But citizens who vote nonetheless. Millions of others are diametrically opposed to that reactionary view. We believe in diversity, progressive social policies, reducing income inequality, and providing equal educational and employment opportunities (not guarantees, not welfare for everyone) to all.
These different points of view are irreconcilable. Really. Which means our country now is all about power and money, maybe always has been. If we progressives want to prevail, we need to vote massively, avoid apathy at all costs, take the lesser evil if need be on occasion. Knowing that the plutocrats, racists, misogynists and their ilk have more resources and will do everything legal and illegal to grab and maintain power.
I hope our domestic level of violence does not grow, because both sides feel aggrieved. Undeniably, I feel the progressive side is justified, the reactionary one illegitimate. There is no equivalence to me, no equal validity in their positions. This war we are in may never be won or lost, just constant.
12
Admirable analysis and hope. With one glaring exception: you do just what "they" do - you label people. You want all of us who believe in a just social contract to vote your way? Then don't talk about the "others" as mostly old and white and poorly educated. I am old and white. Many like me are far from reactionary. And we are not poorly educated either. The reactionaries I know, and here in CA we do have reactionaries, are all in their early 50s. And yes, most of them lack college degrees, though they are far from the stupid oafs you imply. They come to their ideas from many angles. You need to stick to your ideas, and make them clear and appealing. I always vote to support the social contract - providing a safely net, good education, and equal opportunities. But I will have to swallow hard to bring myself to vote for people who consistently label others. That's the lazy push-button way. If you are running for office, you study the people you want to appeal to very carefully. Why do they need convincing and reassuring? How do you go about that? Do some work to get our votes. Don't just blather on. I voted for Hillary, but that whole "deplorables" mess still sticks in my craw.
28
Well said. "If you are running for office, you study the people you want to appeal to very carefully. Why do they need convincing and reassuring? How do you go about that?"
And, the bulk of the Clinton campaign, from her attacking her voters with the "deplorables" bit of nastiness to her "I'm with her" self-focused branding were fundamental contradictions of your guidance. We voters always want to know if you're with US . . . if you've found your way to OUR wavelength.
In his "Make America Great Again" positioning, Trump, for all his coarseness, knew enough to tell people that he understood their worries and would solve THEIR problems . . . would make THEM great. Was he being megalomaniacal? Of course. But he at least offered the appearance of reaching out and became the lesser of the two evils. And, he's ridden the economic recovery wave that Obama created enough to cleverly claim it and convince a great many of his voters that they made the right choice.
Maybe the Democratic wins in Pennsylvania and Alabama suggest that there's been some learning from the political lesson that Trump meted out. We'll see. But, it's not evident yet on the national level. Launching symbolic law suits against Wikileaks et al is not a voter-centered strategy.
Sorry to correct you but the first Civil War never actually ended. The South may have lost the battles but they never stopped fighting in favor of dividing the Union, exploitation, hypocrisy, and ignorance. Ever since the Southern Strategy" of Goldwater, Nixon, and especially Reagan, today's Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln in name only. They are in fact the Party of the Old Civil War South and you can see it everything they say, do, and don't do.
Most of all they are the party of hypocrites and liars, bigots and exploiters.
12
"Sorry to correct you but the first Civil War never actually ended. "
I've always told people that the South didn't sign a peace agreement but a truce. We lost the battle because we ran out of ammunition but we are stocking up.
1
It's funny listening to liberals complain about supposedly "activist" decisions.
3
Liberals complain about unjustified "judicial activism". Right-wingers (so-called "conservatives") complain about "judicial activism" while simultaneously practicing and approving it to an extreme.
8
Secession. Let the Red States secede, and just try to survive without handouts. It won't be pretty, but it WILL be well deserved and final. And me, I'll retire early and go to Seattle, Permanently.
10
It's not the Blue States vs the White house. It's between the Blue States vs the Red States. Get it right.
1
The coup was accomplished in November 2016. A fascist was "elected" by American's voting against their own self-interests, unable to discern the truth in their addiction to Faux' propaganda. As we've seen, much of what makes us proud to be American has been dragged through the gutter by the grifter in the White House, and the Republican Party has shown itself to lack even a single patriot. Not one in the entire party of white males. Unless the people elected a Democrat super-majority in November, or set the stage for one in 2020, we're over as anything special as a country.
8
" we're over as anything special as a country."
Isn't it the contention of the Globalists and Progressives that there's nothing special about the US? That borders and nationalism are man made constructs and that we're all the same?
Yes and a communist was elected in 2008 and 2012. He nearly destroyed this country but thank god Trump won in 2016 to stop the disgrace called Hilary who would have completed the destruction.
It's clear that Trump is doing exactly what is base of supporters want him to do. They are eager to punish the so called "coastal elites" who have somehow left them behind. Hatred is never a good underlying basis for policy making and the wounds to our social fabric will be deep and long festering. We are witnessing a full scale assault on the independence of the judiciary across both State and Federal levels. Pennsylvania legislators are mulling the possibility of impeaching the Supreme Court justices who declared the state's gerrymandered districts illegal. North Carolina legislature is working to politicize the state's court system and reduce its influence over the legislature. Republicans, it seems, would rather have tyranny that purports to retain white supremacy than democracy that holds the door open to equality for black and latino citizens.
7
This is a frightening crusade which strikes me as much about revenge and vindictiveness than the commitment to public service and the Constitution.
6
It's more like a new Revolutionary War, with the government enacting policies and laws that support a King George mentality.
4
The Chicago Ct. decision was correct. It has been the law for some time now that the states cannot be coerced to support the federal gov't's projects. That doesn't mean that I agree with sanctuary cities. But, probably anything tried now, the carrot or the stick, to end sanctuary cities, will be seen as an artifice to do coerce the states by the courts. I'd try a tax though. That always seem to win.
What is really reprehensible is not the WH, which actually made an effort to get new immigration laws, but as usual, "the bad guys," and by that, I mean our two major parties. As with so many other issues, both sides want everything, pretending to negotiate. Many on the right want a wall and the most of the left wants as open borders as possible. I think both sides are for the DACA "kids," but not enough to compromise. So, we are not going to get comprehensive immigration reform unless one party gets control of all three branches.
As to Ms. G's Civil War analogy, in the actual war, there was a reasonable argument as to who should control Ft. Sumter and who started the war. The North won and that's how we got a final answer, but you could argue it (which does not include slavery). As to the war she is speaking of, it was not started by Trump, whatever his faults, which I think many. It was started by a hysterical reaction to his election and the decision to "resist" at all costs and some of the worst civil behavior since the 1970s.
2
Complete misrepresentation of the "left" (actually, the center as of say 30 years ago).
5
Tom, I find that whatever I say about the left to those on the left or the right to those on the right is almost always deemed wrong. it seems most of them on both sides think they are moderates (b/c they are always reasonable in their minds) and anyone who disagrees even a tad, must be on the other side. If you really believe you are in the center, why were you also not sure I was wrong about my characterization of the right?
Bravo, Ms. Greenhouse. Your well-reasoned piece is truly enlightening, and a pleasure to read. Would that every member of the Congress read it, never mind the Attorney General. (Given his proclivity for television, it is too much to ask that the POTUS read it.)
3
The author lost any shred of credibility when she referred to California as a "free State". California is anything but free and actively works against law abiding citizens while conferring special privileges on those here illegally and anyone else willing to adhere to their dogma. We are constantly barraged by our "betters" telling us they are "leading on all issues" The truth (like in all Statists regimes) runs starkly counter to their assertions. Despite obscene increases in spending (over 50% in Jerry Brown part deux), our school hover near last in performance, as do out prisons recidivism rate at double the average spending per inmate. We have over a trillion dollars in unfunded pension liability - with increasing billions in budget spending to cover investment shortfalls. Jerry's low-speed, "choo choo to nowhere" will never be completed yet chews up billions annually that cold be better spent on updated our crumbling, 3rd world infrastructure. Corruption is endemic. If this is what Progressives have in mind for the rest of America it's no wonder that you folks are destined to be only a regional party, forever dependent on the fix being in. The productive people of California know their government despises them and their dream to live free and pursue happiness and are leaving in droves.
27
Hi, Kirk Weir -
I'm a "productive" person of California, and I couldn't be happier. If I didn't already live here, I'd move here. I am pleased that my state is fighting the depressing, alarming, and increasingly fascistic government of Donald J. Trump.
California is far from perfect, but I am happy and proud to be part of it.
23
"The productive people of California know their government despises them and their dream to live free and pursue happiness and are leaving in droves."
For what reasons do you stay?
5
I don't entirely agree with this reader, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. Sacramento (the state legislature and governor) is largely unresponsive to the people, but strangely seems to continually pass legislation that benefits special interests, particularly those with strong lobbying efforts. $ounds like Washington, a bit.
California is required to balance its budget, like other states. We also have voted to restrict tax increases, with the result that many state services and responsibilities are underfunded - parks, roads, schools in low income areas, etc. In an attempt to increase state revenues, the state has adopted an aggressive system of "user fees," including fees tacked on to traffic tickets that essentially quadruple the underlying fine.
Staunchly Democrat vs. the Republican dominated cabel in Washington, together we are a case study in how one party control is not in the public interest.
6
I find the title of this article extremely inappropriate, many human beings lost their lives during the first Civil War. The English language provides enough words to express an idea. Let's all hope there will never be a second Civil War.
4
States rights philosophy interferes with our constitution's equal protection of the laws.
States can make laws affecting our lives in crucial matters---taxes, jobs, unions, health care, the environment, education, welfare, criminal justice and the death penalty. This means our democracy cannot protect all citizens, but varies per geographical location.
A person’s rights, protections and well being shouldn’t depend on geographical location and the whims of local officials. And a hodge podge of election rules are left up to states, letting voter suppression and gerrymandering distort our democracy..
So what does US citizenship really mean? Whatever local lawmakers and governors want it to mean? And thus depends on which party is in power?
5
We need courts to stand up and protect the liberty of citizens, to ensure equal treatment/protection under the law. We have far too many instances where laws are present to protect a special interest, not the common interest.
4
The Linda Greenhouse doctrine: states have a right to nullify federal laws--as long as nullification favors Democratic causes.
Nullification has a long and hideous history. Let's stick with the quaint notion that federal statutes are the supreme law of the land.
11
They are, and they can enforce their laws. That you suggest others must do their unpaid work suggests you approve of slavery "if the cause is just." They are nullifying the law, they just aren't using their time and money to enforce tyrant laws from D.C.
2
You have completely failed to understand the issues at play here. Congress legislates and controls the purse strings. Trump has decided that now he gets to do this - declare a new law for cities and withhold the funding Congress apportioned to them. If you were less focused on getting a win for your tribe, this would concern you greatly. Take a look at what life is like in countries where an executive has all of the power and there are weak or absent elected legislative bodies and an independent judiciaries. They are not places anyone would want to live, regardless of their politics. Separation of powers has served us very well these last 240 years. A patriot would wish to see it preserved.
8
Of course, states should only have the right to nullify federal laws if it favors Republicans, the way it’s always been...
2
Neither Ms. Greenhouse nor any other liberal should defend the federal deduction for state and local taxes (or any other itemized deduction for that matter.) Only about a quarter of taxpayers itemize today and this number will go down with the higher standard deduction. Even among those who itemize, it is the very richest who benefit disproportionately.
So how about eliminating all itemized deductions and using the revenue gained thereby to benefit the poor and middle class?
5
Uh huh. And only 0.1% of decedents’ estates qualify for estate tax at the old $5.49 million/individual rate, those only the very very VERY richest folks. But Mr. Ryan and his GOP buddies, after trying unsuccessfully to eliminate the tax altogether, managed to double the exemption, effective this year. A huge revenue hit to the Treasury, for the sole benefit of a tiny, super-wealthy minority.
If we’re going to castigate tax dodges that reduce revenue which could be used to "benefit the poor and middle class," let's start with that one.
5
Indeed. If you are subject to multiple tyrants (government taxing authorities), then you must pay them all their share.
1
How about adjusting the rules for itemization so they don't benefit the very rich the most?
5
The "federalism revolution in reverse" being waged by conservatives — in the White House, Congress, and (in all likelihood) the Supreme Court — is part of a deeply troubling pattern of attack on democracy.
During the campaign, Donald Trump and a number of other conservatives expressly stated an unwillingness to abide by the outcome of democratic procedures. Mitch McConnell and Republicans in Congress did likewise when they blocked Pres. Obama's nomination to replace Antonin Scalia. And Republicans in general, across the country, have consistently acted to defy clear demographic trends in the United States that have equally clear implications for political trends.
The issue is not only one of the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, but a more important one of redistribution of power to the wealthy, the white, and the conservative. Redistribution of wealth in the hands of the one percent brings obvious consequences in the distribution of power. But, if democratic political power were fairly distributed, there would at least be a hope that the redistribution of wealth could be halted or reversed. Republicans, and some Democrats, are clearly acting to ensure that no fair redistribution will be possible for decades — perhaps far longer.
10
The Federal government has been using funding as leverage to encourage compliance with desired policy for a long time. Only now, when the policy goals of the Federal government are not in line with those of Ms. Greenhouse, does she find this a problem.
8
Greenhouse is just another so called "unbiased" NY Times journalist who later becomes a far left columnist. If they are all so unbiased how come they all become left wing columnists eventually?
3
Don't know about "only now," but it surely is wrong every time.
The funding leverage was used through laws passed by Congress.
3
I think that the Civil War never ended for "the South."
The battles against non-whites and progressive, non-church-based humanitarian and community works, free public education and unobstructed voting continues.
Trump and his new Republican Party has given full-throated encouragement to take our Union apart, piece by piece, in service of greed, corporate control and total Republican and federal Executive dominance.
45
Prior to the Civil War, Fugitive Slave Acts convinced many Northerners that “Slave Power” was coming to take their rights away, in the same manner of chattel slavery. States rights vs Federal rights are always going to be a bugaboo for the USA and cited as a denial of freedom by both sides when the Feds in power come from the other side of the political spectrum.
But history does have a direction, one towards recognizing new types of citizens, extending the rights and freedoms of the privileged classes on to more and more folks. Trump is an atavism. I find his anarchy repugnant yet ultimately doubt he will be able change the direction of the progressive will. Perhaps progressives need to find new ways to invest in liberal institutions and policies and accept one step back for two steps forward. Or we can go back to the solution that obtained in 1861.
8
About time someone put into print that the Ultra-Swamp Administration is steadily working to take over our democracy by stealthily trying start, fight and win a Civil War.
When legal paths to overcoming oppression and totalitarianism are removed or blocked, there suddenly isn't any other recourse for the victimized population.
18
Correct me if I am wrong but did not President Obama
sign all sorts of orders mandating that the States do this
or that or lose Federal Funding ?
Was not one order to allow self-indentified transgendered students access to whatever facilites they so choose couched in such language of losing Federal Funding for
the Schools and possible Federal Lawsuits ?
Were you up in arms then, Ms. Greenhouse ?
Can someone explain why "un-documented" immigrants deserve to be counted in the Census and thus have
representation in Congress ?
How can we have a "Civil Society" if I violate the Federal Laws - say Robbing a Bank and local Law Enforcement will not even notify the Federal Authortities that they have me
in custody on another charge.
I know the Progressive Elites hire "undocumented" immigrants to be their nannies, maids, gardeners because
they would never hire poor Americans to do that work -
but one would think Ms. Greenhouse would be above
supporting such economic slavery via "States Rights".
14
One difference in the two situations is that individual rights of citizens are Constitutionally protected (and were being infringed by the states)in the Obama situation sited, whereas in the immigrant case, the fed is imposing a requirement NOT in the Constitution and seeks to punish states that do not acquiesce.
Both Progressives and Conservatives hire “undocumented” immigrants — don’t get on some holier than thou horse to make a case that doesn’t exist. Both sides hire help on the basis of cost: what bearing has that got to the federal government telling the states to do the work of the federal government — or else? Two wrongs don’t make a right and in this situation your example is not analogous.
4
BR,
My analogies are always proper,
otherwise I would not make them.
Where is there in the Constitution the
right to declar yourself whatever gender
you so wish and then demand the Federal
Government defend such a right ?
Whomever hires undocumented immigrants
violates the law, so in either case the laws
should be enforced and local and state government agencies should support the
Federal Government in their following the
laws of the land.
So if Mexico or any other nation deports a United States citizen for entering illegally, working illegally, staying illegally, and then committing a crime - are we really to believe that this author and other progressives would decry the practice? If so, can they present even a scintilla of evidence that they’ve taken this position in the past? That US citizens should be able to go wherever we want, and do whatever we want free of consequences when we get there?
And for crying out loud, do progressives really want to broadcast the fact that they like the idea of releasing illegal immigrants who’ve committed crimes against citizens back into the general population, instead of handing them over to the Feds for deportation?
Maybe progressives should stick to their other crowd pleasers, like opening our doors to unvetted people from terror sponsor states, allowing men to use the ladies’ room, and raising our taxes. Because I’m pretty sure this open borders at any cost stuff is unpopular across the board.
9
Perhaps you need to reread the opinion piece. This is not about deporting people by the federal government, although that is involved. The case is about whether the federal government may coerce a state into doing the business of the federal government, namely by using state funds and state employees to locate and point out those whom the federal government may want to deport. Separation of powers between the Fed’s and the state, anyone?
Amazing how Conservatives can be clear when it comes to their personal rights and yet so obtuse when it comes to the sovereign rights of the various states vs the federal government. They have a similar obtuseness when it come to the decision making of individual men vs women. The men are always independent, the women are forced to give over self-sovereignty to others: either the state or someone else’s religion — unless they have enough money to flip the bird to all others, take themselves to another country and pay for the healthcare they want. In that respect, the state situation is no different: first the feds deprive them of tax money to operate government and then they step in to tell them what they must do — or else. Follow the money, honey. It tells a big, national story about how Conservatives manipulate others.
14
Last I looked, every police officer takes an oath to uphold the constitution. When a state explicitly instructs an officer to break that oath, is there a problem?
SSS, your point ignores the quoted judicial opinion in the article and conflates an illegal order with the Constitution.
To clarify, replace the policy you agree with, with one that you don’t. Suppose Trump reacted to criticism from Pope Francis by ordering federal law enforcement to tattoo stars on Catholics’ faces, so everyone could identify traitors.
Then his attorney general, without support from Congress, even broad opposition from Congress, refused to release federal appropriations if state officials refused to name Catholics in their custody or jurisdiction. If the locals passed an ordinance saying, “police, do not report Catholics to the FBI/CIA/ICE,” upholding the Constitution would mean ordering officers not to report Catholics.
A clear article on the new Civil War between the blue states and the federal government, mainly the Executive branch. As a resident of New York who will now pay higher (not lower) taxes as a result of the (mostly) red state Republicans endorsement of the tax cut for the wealthy bill, I'm a partisan on this issue. I'm trying to sell my house, but the now non-deductible (after $10,000) portion of the high taxes have chased away many potential buyers. Unfortunately, this issue does not have a legal challenge at this time. The other ones clearly pit unbridled executive authority, exacerbated by an overly complacent and complicit Republican-controlled Congress against "states rights." Hopefully, the lower court rulings will prevail upon appeal. With Congress utterly failing to exercise a "check" to "balance" the autocratic tendencies of Donald Trump, the judiciary is our only hope.
21
Alas, M. Wortman, the Judiciary is owned by the same cabal of rich corporate and private donors who have paid for elections that have given us national gerrymandering and voted suppression. Don’t be surprised to find in November that some state will be conducting elections on electronic machines that are easily hacked and with no paper trail and no vote counting in public. There is little difference between what one of our national parties has been aiming for and that in other authoritarian regimes.
2
Your argument, Mr. Wortman, is with your state and it's remarkably out-of-kilter tax structure, not with the Executive Branch of the United States government.
Had you and your fellow New Yorkers not insisted on a government for which not tax hike is ever ill-considered, you might not have the problems that you are experiencing.
3
Interesting, isn't it, that a lot of those states are the ones that vote blue.
It should be a requirement that states vote on marked paper ballots and counted by optical scanners. Such counting devices are quite reliable, generally hack-proof, and having a paper record allows physical recounts.
My state votes in this fashion, doesn't yours?
And if it doesn't, why aren't you making a real stink in your state's capital about getting a voting system that is verifiable?
Throughout the article, I thought of the president's third attempt at his travel ban. Media reports seem to conclude that the conservatives on the court will side with the executive's authority to act in the interests of national security.
The question that arises in both areas of law is whether the executive may expand his authority in ways that are "cynical," to be sure, but also unequal.
In our system of government, the feds have only the powers granted by the Constitution, while the states each have plenary police powers and sovereign authority. The federal government needs a constitutional hook on which to hang alterations in that scheme.
The Trump Administration conspicuously lacks the legal justification and analysis of its policy changes that make inroads into state and individual freedoms worth some nebulous, but superseding, national interest. Even conservative judges will want more.
6
Stated more simply: The executive branch does not hold the power of the purse. Therefore, the administration cannot punish states for violating federal policy through fiscal punishment. The decision belongs to Congress. If Congress wants to enact a law diminishing states rights, that's their prerogative. However, the White House cannot order a financial punishment upon these states. They haven't been granted the authority. That's the constitutional issue. Correct?
I suppose we'll find out whether the judiciary is still sufficiently apolitical to respect a straight forward constitutional argument. Forgive my lack of faith but I am legitimately concerned over the issue.
14
this is a very well written piece, but I object to one of the first points; "the cap on tax deductions that will strike at residents of cities and states where high tax rates support decent public services."
I live in Mass, where my income tax is 5.25% and my property taxes on my $900K house is about $11K. My mother lives in NJ where her taxes are 10% and the property taxes on a similar valued house is $17K.
There is no way you can say that NJ has better services, better schools or anything else that is better then MA. What is different? more bloat, more corruption, more graft, more waste; higher paid teachers that don't produce better results; stronger public unions for more people who do less for more money.
Its time people in high-tax states start demanding more from their government. The tax plan is bad for my mother and neutral for me; so I am not 100% in favor of it, but I dont think you can say higher taxes lead to better services. That is bunk.
14
Of course, the highest income tax rate in NJ is 8.97% and kicks in on incomes of 500k plus. So basically you are crying because your mom, who makes over 500k a year pays 8.97% in taxes? Cry us a river. The tax rate for incomes between 80k-150k in 5.525%. Secondly, real estate taxes are local(county) in NJ so making a state to state comparison is pointless. I found counties where you'd pay around 16k and others where you'd pay 27k. But then again they are local in MA as well. For instance, in Hampden you would be paying 14k a year in real estate taxes on 900k home. I found other counties as low as 10k. Not sure you are a good source of information.
8
higher taxes does not result in better services, just higher taxes.
2
NJ is a bad example for tax comparisons anywhere outside of NJ. High property taxes are an intentional strategy. New Jersey wants to be a net-exporter of sales spending. In other words, the tax structure is specifically designed to encourage out of state visitors to spend their money within New Jersey. Namely New York but they are not alone. That's why politicians are incapable of increasing the gas tax or sales tax in any significant way. Businesses rely on property owners for a competitive advantage. That's great if you're a business owner. It stinks if you're a retired property owner. Them's the breaks.
By the way, if you're buying a 900k property and feel comfortable with property taxes, we should be taxing your income more.
Where was the outrage when Obama imposed the Clean Power Plan on the country? It does not reduce conventional pollution, does not reduce CO2, imposes 80% of its costs on red states, violates the Clean Air Act, and was never authorized by any Congressional action. Fortunately, the federal courts took the unusual action of blocking implementation until the case wends its way through the court system because the complainants are likely to win on the merits and it would do immeasurable harm if implemented.
Compare with the blue state objections to Trumps executive order, which strangely enough is within the bounds of the authorizing legislation. It imposes essentially zero costs on the states. Law enforcement routinely runs check on people in custody, so there is minimal cost even if they had to add another search. Making a phone call to immigration adds nothing to the cost. If ICE requests a 48 hour hold, the federal government pays the local jail a per diem cost higher than their actual cost. It is incredible that local officials are obligated to release criminals into the population rather than allowing federal agents to detain them in a controlled environment.
Like the Hawaiian decision to block Trump's executive order, and the ruling that DACA has to be continued, this lawsuit is going down in flames.
The federal government is entitled to use a grant program to bribe states to further federal policy.
25
I see, ebmem. States rights are fine to shove guns into every hand and kick people out of the country but not to make our air and environment safer?
Sound like you need to live in Russia - not OUR United States of America. Maybe you do?
72
Sorry njglea, as my father in law used to say, "it depends on who's ox is being gored"
4
So, if a state wants to have more national political power and money (seats in congress, electoral college votes, population based federal funds, etc.) all it needs to do is allow a few million illegal immigrants to reside within its "sanctuary" borders. And a "legal scholar" like Greenhouse actually has to wonder why that should be of concern to the federal government?
9
How much do you want to bet that the republicans, who for decades have proclaimed the supremacy of states rights, will now proclaim the Federal government is supreme, now that they are in control of it and some (blue) states are chaffing at Federal rule?
49
what's good for the goose is good for the gander ?
if the end result is a reining in of federal overreach, that is a good thing. there is much to be said for having diversity amongst the states rather than inflexible uniformity. progress is made with flawed attempts, incremental refinements, and consensual adoption of the best solutions rather than beltway proclamations.
1
Whether the looming civil war is diffused or declared "scorched earth" likely rests with Chief Justice Roberts and his vision of the role of the Supreme Court.
Roberts often speaks of the importance of maintaining the legitimacy of the Court by keeping it "above the political fray." Given those concerns, one might think that he would see the role of the Court as one of evenhanded application of the constitutional limits to both executive and legislative power. That he would be unlikely, for example, to decide that the Constitution gives any POTUS--and especially one who seems intent on establishing himself as emperor--the plenary power to do whatever he pleases, however bigoted his intentions, so long as he at least labels his actions "in the interest of national security." Or to decide that the Constitution gives any political party the plenary power to rig the electoral scale.
But Roberts is giving every impression that when he speaks of keeping the Court "above the political fray," what he really means is letting the executive as well as the legislative branches--which both just happen to be GOP-controlled--run freely amok. And thus, in the name of being apolitical, he is both abdicating the Court's role as a constitutional check on executive and legislative power and effectively turning the country over to the GOP.
If that is indeed his vision for the Supreme Court, we will be facing not just a civil war, but far worse--the potential loss of our democracy.
16
Once again, The USA is NOT a Democracy and never has been one. It is a Constitutional Representative Republic.
5
@Terry Holcomb: "Constitutional representative republic" wouldn't fit my remaining characters. But you do raise a good point. In a pure democracy--as opposed to a democratic republic--the minority would have no rights. So if, as I expect, Roberts does cede unfettered executive and legislative power to his own party, ostensibly in the name of keeping the court apolitical, he could effectively be converting our republican form of government to that of a pure democracy--where the majority rules to the exclusion of minority rights.
5
Liberals like mob rule and also laws based on the whim's of a misinformed populace. That it why they love the NY Times and believe that we should be a pure democracy, so voters can constantly vote themselves "free" benefits while they bankrupt the country and turn us into Venezuela.
This is brilliant, "“The issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation,” Judge Rovner wrote, “the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government — the separation of powers. The founders of our country well understood that the concentration of power threatens individual liberty and established a bulwark against such tyranny by creating a separation of powers among the branches of government. If the executive branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken.”
This is exactly the danger OUR democracy faces today. Will the corporate/catholic justices on OUR supreme court decide for the people or for those who would force tyranny on us?
40
What goes around comes around. When Democrats passed Obamacare, Republican states systematically undermined it through law suits and deliberately blocking the expansion of Medicare even though federal government was paying 90% of the cost. Now it is the blue states' turn to try to block Trump admin in travel ban, immigration. Ultimately it will make the country even less governable and accelerate the decline of USA as a superpower.
6
Well, the Trump people can try to come after the Blue States but we're smarter, more inventive, more energetic, more forward thinking and happier. I think we're approaching a possible realignment of Blue States as their own country. Certainly we can find a way to stop sending all of our tax dollars to the Red states who then turn around and start screaming about the government. We should keep Blue state money in the Blue states.
22
Don't MESS with . . . California!!!
1
For sure, Blues are more smarter, inventiver, engergeticer, forwarder thinking and more happier. That explains why y'all suffered such a humiliating victory in 2016. It also explains why y'all send all of your tax dollars to a basket of deplorables - pretty smart move. Good luck with your new Blue Country. Better check the demographics before you find yourself isolated on some scattered islands on the Coasts.
1
I could not agree more, Joanna. Let the Blue States keep their money and let the Red States "pick themselves up by their bootstraps". Isn't that there moto? Do the Red States really want our welfare checks? Let them support themselves without reliance on the big bad Elites they so dislike.
5
Wait; why would high taxes drive "productive, progressive and mobile millennials from high-tax states"? Why flee high tax CA for TX, only to then vote for the same people whose "progressive" policies destroyed CA?
Are you suggesting that high taxes drive "productive" people out of said states? Isn't the very basis of leftist policy that tax rates don't matter and that "productive" people will flock to those blue states for the "progressive" policies, diversity, tolerance, "decent public services", etc.?
Or are you suggesting that young "progressives" support "decent public services", provided by well-paid, Democratic-voting, public-employee-union members, but won't pay the high taxes to underwrite them? Isn't that kinda like hypocrisy?
And if young "productive" people scurry off to TX, won't that turn NY red -- or simply hasten the inevitable bankruptcy of the blue state model?
Alas, I think you're probably right; progressives are fairly greedy and, although highly educated (with gender studies degrees), not very bright. They WOULD relocate to a state which prospers as a result of NOT being blue, then vote for precisely the same policies, from the effects of which they are fleeing.
Because, ultimately "productive" and "progressive" are mutually exclusive. You can't be a "progressive" without supporting the taxes which it demands. And if you support "progressive" economic policy, why would you move to TX? Stay in NJ where you belong.
13
You dont seem to understand. The Trump tax bill lowered or eliminated some of the middle tax breaks, particularly the deduction for state and local taxes. That falls harder on states like CA and others. THAT is what the tax increase predicament for CA citizens consists of, not the fact that yes, CA has overall higher state taxes per se. It's only the effect on people's FEDERAL taxes that would prompt the idea of leaving for TX
11
The majority of voters with a college degree voted for Trump, although probably few with gender studies degrees. The majority of voters who lack a high school diploma voted for Hillary.
Progressives are not migrating from California to Texas, Republicans are migrating from California [where they have no voice] to Texas, which will result in an increase in red state House members and a decrease in blue state representation . It is the same dynamic that caused the South to turn red in the mid 1980s. Dixicrats did not convert to Republicans. Republicans from blue states migrated to red states and influenced the Democrat South to turn red.
NY got bluer, Louisiana got red.
4
If only there were a vote "down" button on this comment section. Then I could award you properly.
"Because, ultimately "productive" and "progressive" are mutually exclusive. You can't be a "progressive" without supporting the taxes which it demands. "
I don't think "mutually exclusive" means what you think it means.
1
I find it incredibly hypocritical that Greenhouse is making federalist arguments against Trump. "“Congress must accord states the esteem due them as joint partners in a federal system,” Are we ignoring the prior years of Democratic trampling of the 10th amendment ? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Given the idea of states as "joint partners in a federal system", how is it that Obama decides that he can dictate to the states such an expansion of environmental policy as in the Clean Power Plan or tell the states how to run their health care systems as in Obamacare ? (Note that both policies were partially or wholly rebuked by the Supreme Court.)
The simple truth is that federalism (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. When in power, liberals are happy to ignore such federalist principles in pushing command-and-control policies from Washington. But only when they are out of power do they find their co-sovereign powers to basically thumb their nose at the federal government (e.g. sanctuary cities).
Don't misunderstand. Two wrongs do not make a right. Judge Rovner is mainly correct that local police serve local not federal priorities (though actively prohibiting federal officers from seeing inmates does seem to constitute "affirmative interference"). But liberals should remember these federalist principles when they return to power.
10
There is nothing in the law that prevents the federal government from bribing the states via grants to support federal interests and prioroties. The law authorizing the grant program has general objectives that it is to be used to support local and state law enforcement. Under previous administrations, the regulations were written to support anti-terrorist activities, broken window enforcement demanded by minority residents in high crime areas, community policing. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department punished cities that increased police presence in high crime areas which resulted in the spiking of murders in inner cities.
The Justice Department is responsible for tailoring regulations to meet the objectives of their elected boss. If blue cities are unwilling to meet the modified requirements of the federal government, they are free to waive the grant.
3
She specifically held it up as a stunning turnaround, that's all. She wasnt rubbing her hands and chuckling over it. It's just an observation
4
And where's your rush to judgement of conservatives? Why are you only calling out liberal change of heart on matters of federalism? For the last two decades conservatives have screamed, yelled, and throw tantrums over federal overreach. But now they've undertaken the most massive overreach in a generation and all you can say is liberals are hypocrites? Tell me, do you really believe it's okay when conservatives do it because that's what your one-sided comment is saying.
1
There will always be people that value your rational approach to the issues that pertain to fairness, cooperation and solidarity in a federal system where each state has a say, thanks to the healthy division of powers, federal, state and local, on the basis of the separate but equal branches of government. Sadly, the abusive methods of our current ugly American in-chief are dismantling all this, in his 'divide to conquer quest for absolute power. If a blank check is given to a runaway president, to go on destroying what we hold dear, the fault may not stop with the sycophants of the G.O.P., but for a majority that, thus far, remains silent at a time when speaking up is our duty. So, although some of us do appreciate your comments, do not expect Trump to know about it, he is illiterate.
6
Vladamir Putin is waging a war against the US, he just didn't bother to declare it like they did in the old days. He is attacking our institutions and our democracy. The Red states are waging a war against the blue states. It is a Cold War, and they didn't come out and declare it, but they too are waging a war against our institutions and our democracy. Just as we can fight Putin with financial sanctions and reducing the oil revenue which finance his war, we can begin financial sanctions against the red states once the Dems regain the Congress and the White House. Imagine how red state Republicans of the Welfare States will react when we cut off their subsidies, 8 of the top welfare states are red states.
10
The Clean Power Plan imposed 80% of its costs on red states and violated the Clean Air Act. It was an attack by the federal government on blue states. It, and other autocratic actions of the Obama administration, cost Hillary the election.
The Russians were helpful in revealing the extent to which the DNC denied Democrat voters the ability to select their presidential nominee. Establishment Republicans were faced with a similar dilemma as establishment Democrats, that there was a nationwide objection to the establishment. But the authoritarian Democrats crammed down their choice on Democrats, while the establishment Republicans, although publically objecting to Trump, allowed the voters to choose.
The amount of private welfare is dwarfed by the amount of corporate crony welfare, The big boys get billions to the pennies for the poor.
The Democrat establishment along with the RINOs are terrified that Trump will be able to continue to remove their tax loopholes and government largesse.
It takes fancy government cooking of the books to create the false narrative that poor Mississippians are getting more federal largess at $120/month in food stamps than Buffett, Gates, Musk largesse at the tune of billions per year. But it works for gruberized Democrats who will support anything if the lies are repeated often..
4
Study your Civics. The USA is NOT a Democracy ad never has been one. It is a Constitutional Representative Republic.
2
Imagine how Blue Island Dimocrats of the Nanny State will react when we cut off their food, energy and water supplies. Before one wages war, it is wise to survey the lay of the land. Those who don't wind up like Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler. Blue ends at the city limits, not at the state line.
1
While I agree with this editorial it is an over-analyzation of a simple concept. Republicans want states rights when those "rights" involve the persecution of minorities. When the Republicans control the federal government states rights no longer exist. It's all about racism, nothing new, nothing complicated.
14
Pot calling the Kettle black?? You sure didn't have any problem with the SCOTUS when they took Marital Rights law away from the States. Democrats are just as selective about when they like States rights too.
2
In order to believe your assertion, you have to believe the Democrat narrative that the Dixicrats converted to Republicans. Nope, the racist southern Democrats of the 1960s are still Democrats.
1
No, they aren't. Why do you think Lyndon Johnson said after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that "We have lost the South for a generation".
Who do you think Johnson thought the South was lost to? It was lost to Republicans, of course. Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat, and he knew the Dixiecrats would switch to the Republican Party, which is why he said it.
There is certainly a debate about State's rights versus the role of the Federal government.I would hesitate to call it a civil war.I am reading Chernow's book on Grant which describes the devastation and division of the Civil War.This terrible conflict should never be used as a metaphor for other struggles.This said, it is curious that the party of State rights is suddenly so favorable to power of the Executive branch.It displays an elasticity of principles and a shameful hypocrisy.
10
What is hysterical about the assertion that the federal government under Trump is denying states rights is that the federal government funds less than 10% of local law enforcement through the federal grant program similar to the 10% of K-12 education funded by the federal taxpayer and Trump's approach is at least rational.
Obama didn't want to write regulations demanding that the only resolution to a transgender student's bathroom and locker room use was for the student to be allowed to use the facilities of his selected gender, because there was no legal, scientific or social consensus on how the issue should be resolved. Instead, he had the Justice department send a "guidance letter" threatening to cut off all federal funding to any school district that did not conform to his whim.
Trump, on the other hand is changing the details of the law enforcement grants to bribe states who conform to his priorities.
Any state or local government that elects to turn criminals loose into the population rather than making a phone call to ICE is voluntarily waiving federal largesse.
Obama imposed his rule on schools with no public input and no due process.
There is no hypocrisy on either side. Republicans give choices to states and Democrats impose autocratic rule absent due process.
3
It's an exaggeration to call minor policy disagreements a new Civil War. And perhaps Ms Greenhouse should have disclosed whether the new limit on state and local tax deductibility affects her personally. Given her level of snark on the issue, it sounds like it probably did.
10
As I said to another comment, it all depends on who's ox is being gored
1
Before the tax bill, only 20% of tax filers itemized, concentrated in the top 10% of income earners. After, only 5% will itemize. The people who are being limited to the $10,000 maximum are in the top 5%, and not all of them will be disadvantaged by the new tax law, only the richest among them.
Nationwide, 80% of people who pay taxes will get a tax cut. Within that group, those at the bottom of the income distribution are getting the biggest cuts, tapering off to the top of the 80% to insignificant cuts.
In the high tax blue states, only 65-75% of taxpayers are getting a cut.
The Schumer complaint is that largess was being given out and the most wealthy didn't get a fair share.
1
If you believe that, there's a nice bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you.
Remember also the Printz v US case in which the Court held that local law enforcement could not be forced into enforcing certain provisions of the Brady bill.....
1
There is a "Civil War" alright, but it not a different civil war it's the same one. The right- wing has coelesced the "Southern strategy" into a monolithic voting block of southern & like-minded states to thwart any progressive progress on any front. Not only have they "cheated & stolen" 2 elections with disastrous results, they are armed to the teeth & just itching to do battle..... very perilous times indeed.
9
Bill Clinton won the election in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. But for the electoral college, he would have lost to Bush in the runoff, and Hillary would be an unknown Arkansas housewife.
Trump won with 46%of the popular vote, and you contend that he cheated and stole the election. He won 30 states containing 56% of the population and Hillary won 20 states plus DC with 44%of the population.
2
He had to mortgage himself to the Russians in order to do it. Treason is an ugly way to win the Presidency.
For most of its history, the Supreme Court's constitutional analyses have been a brake on, not an initiator of, social progress. (The period from the Court's late-1930's switch that upheld the New Deal through the Warren Court's expansion of individual rights, was an exception, not the norm.)
As part of that jurisprudence, the Court's willingness to see the states as "joint sovereigns" has generally varied in inverse proportion to how progressive the states were as compared to the federal government. It is not an accident that "states' rights" became a euphemism for maintaining Jim Crow.
(This is the cynical-sounding short version; a more nuanced scholarly long form would reach, I am quite certain, the same conclusion.)
7
George, you really need to stop living in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, and start living in the here and now. Jim Crow laws died in the 60's and they aren't coming back. Liberal'as really need to quit bringing up stuff like that in attempts to frighten voters.
3
Who says unfair laws can't come back?
We are seeing common norms and political tradition crumble under an assault by a radical right-wing coup.
It can happen here.
The competence, or more appropriately, the incompetence of the Trump administration notwithstanding, it appears to me that the more things change, the more they stay the same. When we have a Democratic administration and a Republican leaning Supreme Court, the latter seems to take a dimmer view of federal mandates on the states. When we have the reverse, the same thing generally happens. But when we have both institutions led by (or leaning towards) the same Party, the Supreme Court seems to align itself closer to the administration and lean toward more concentration of federal power.
Judges are humans and have political leanings. And elections always have consequences. Unhappy with those consequences? VOTE.
3
Judge Rovner's opinion is wrong on several points, but the most egregious is this:
"If the executive branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators."
Federal immigration law is law enacted by statutes, statutes created by duly elected legislators.
The executive branch does not determine immigration policy, it enforces it. It is the duty of every citizen not to hinder or impede the enforcement of valid laws, even if the citizen does not agree with those laws or the enforcement thereof.
Yes, there are situations where we can agree that illegal immigrants ought to be protected -- think DACA -- but the way to obtain this protection is through a statute, enacted by a legislature--in the case of immigration, by the federal Congress.
The "states rights" argument will never succeed, because states do not have the power to override federal law when it suits them.
7
You need to spend more time with a closer reading of this article. The point being made is that states are not impeding or hindering federal law enforcement of immigration law. They are just declining to participate and spend resources on it. When you say Rovner is wrong, you are saying a hundred years of multiple precedents across several Supreme Court line-ups are wrong. Nothing you say here addresses this point. Instead you build a straw man (States overriding federal law when it suits them) and then burn it down.
3
"The legal complaints assert that requiring people to reveal their citizenship status will predictably depress participation, thereby preventing the government from obeying the constitutional command to conduct an “actual enumeration” every 10 years."
Um...as regards voting, do you think maybe the Constitution is referring to an "actual enumeration" of people who are here lawfully? By what reasoning should voting districts be based even in part on residents who cannot lawfully vote, and their children who are here illegally?
8
Or, you know, you can actually read the constitution which is quite clear:
"[...] according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Besides the fact that it mentions "Persons", not citizens, it also explicitly mentions Indians and slaves who didn't have the right to vote in determining the census.
10
C - So you stand with conservative "strict constructionists" as regards the Constitution?
At the time it was written illegal immigration was no more on the Framers' radar screen than telephones or computers.
Maybe look at it this way - is it reasonable to assume the framers intended apportionment to be based even in part on residents here illegally - and who therefore can't legally vote?
Even strict constructionists like you must agree that if such a nonsensical interpretation governs here, a constitutional amendment is in order.
When it uses the term "Persons", it is actually referring to "U.S. Citizens" because illegal aliens are not protected by the Constitution.
The tension between the sovereign states and the federal government (including presidential authority) existed since, and is inherent to, our constitutional system. It does, and always has, occupied a significant slice of the Supreme Court's docket in all spheres. The conflicts are resolved by judges and lawyers, and almost invariably the losing party peacefully complies with the judicial outcome. Comparing this to the Civil War is hyperbole to the extreme, or maybe just reveals a complete ignorance of the singular impact of that conflict on our history.
A word about Hamdi (the case quoted at the end). It had nothing to do with federal-state sovereignty issues arising from strings attached to federal funding. It had everything to do with the tension between the federal courts and presidential war authority. It's misleading, or just lazy, to conflate one with the other.
7
This article, and many others by Greenhouse, demonstrate the need for competent commentary on the judiciary. These are the issues that we as citizens must begin to become aware of, if We the People are to prevent the current decline of our system of government. It should be obvious that voting is no longer enough; we as citizens must engage these issues, and we appreciate the Times giving us Greenhouse to help us in these matters.
6
That's the new "civil war"? A few politicians desperate for illegal votes? No, no that's not the new civil war at all.
There's nothing new about the "new civil war." The new civil war is the same as 150 years ago, when rich urban politicians decided to disenfranchise and destroy rural cultures. In the late 1860s, the Republicans sent thousands of carpetbaggers to the south to exploit the destroyed economy and take over the cultural and political systems.
That continues today with continued efforts to erase history by removing statues, efforts towards federal control of textbooks and curriculum, Warren's war on colleges for the poor, and the continual push for gun confiscation.
6
"The new civil war is the same as 150 years ago, when rich urban politicians decided to disenfranchise and destroy rural cultures."
In other words, when the North defeated the South and destroyed the abomination that was slavery. It's nice to see people flat out admit that this is all about the south trying to get slavery back!
3
There's no "war on colleges for the poor", It's on FOR-PROFIT colleges that don't educate students but make big profits for owners. The "colleges for the poor" are the public state university and college systems that Republicans have been aggressively attacking for decades. If you're concerned about educating the poor, I suggest you work to shore up our state and community college systems, once the envy of the world before Republicans looted them for tax cuts.
And I have to laugh if you think rich urban politicians are disenfranchising poor rural cultures. Rural states have progressive states and urban populations in a stranglehold of policies based on fear, racism, sexism, religious mythology, and outright rejection of science. They've hijacked the system by gerrymandering rural districts into urban districts explicitly to dilute urban power and block policies urban districts want and need for themselves. At the national scale this red state usurpation of the liberal majority has repeatedly blocked the majority will of the country for the kind of changes needed for life in the 21st century.
Don't tell me rich progressive states are disenfranchising rural poor states when Wyoming, population: 600,000, gets the same two senators as California, population: 39.5 million. Or when the senator from Kentucky, population: 4.5 million, can singlehandedly stop any bill from being voted. It's now and has been for the last decade a tyranny of the minority over the majority.
3
The “war between the states” predated Trump. The red states challenged Obama on health care, immigration and his climate change reform. These were among the most important of Obama’s reforms and the red states had mixed success.
I would add an important point to Ms. Greenouse’s argument. When so much is at stake in the composition of the Court, the temptation to distort the process is huge. McConnell stepped way over the line. But it wasn’t just because he lacked respect for the process. The process was begging him to abuse the system. The fault in his barring Obama’s appointment wasn’t just personal. It was also a product of the high stakes war that Ms.Greenhouse describes.
13
Yes Ms. Greenhouse on civil war is very correct . Just look at the NICS data and you can see firearm sales are five times greater this April than in the year 2000.If a person can have a fever , than so to a nation and America is burning up.
1
The blue states should be careful about advancing what is effectively a nullification argument. Two can play that game.
11
In a few years, Trump court appointees will change the balance of power -- and none of us will be safe from federal dictatorial power in our homes, workplaces or states.
57
Republicans traditionally champion federalism. Trump appointees will be extreme but, like Gorsuch, will not likely support dictatorial power. There are no conservative judges who support abuse of federal authority. You assume Trump judges will think like Trump. Nobody thinks like Trump, especially prominent judges.
5
Vote Blue 2018! Take back Congress and stop the tyranny.
5
If you want to include in America's population census people who are not supposed to even be here and can be captured and removed, in an effort to increase a state's political power, you are automatically discredited as a fringe lunatic who should not have anything published in a public forum. Why for instance do we all "shudder" to know that there is an agency protecting the integrity of our citizenship? That pretty much makes this columnist an enemy of America and it's citizens. Remember that the constitution does not cover non-citizens.
21
The constitution mandates an “actual enumeration.” That requires a count of all residents, not of all citizens. A policy that is understood in advance to undermine that count is unconstitutional.
Let’s set aside for the moment the question of the Administration’s motives in proposing the policy of adding a question about citizenship status to the Census. Pointing out the conflict of this proposed policy with the requirements of the Constitution is the work of a defender of the Constitution and, so, of America. That has been the life’s work of Linda Greenhouse.
32
Non-citizens are not being told they can't fill in the census form. Just that they need to answer the question of their status, citizen or not.
If they don't want to fill it out then they're in violation of a constitutional mandate to count all residents of the country.
MM
Defining someone who is trespassing on another's property as a "resident" does seem to stretch the definition just a trifle.
It isn't so much red vs. blue, nor liberals vs. conservatives, but aliens vs. humanitarians, where the aliens are not outsiders to this country but actual citizens who are ignorant of and/or disdainful of the significance of the first Civil War and Lincoln, who evolved from holding a position of conservative belief to becoming a champion of early civil rights.
6
Are you sure Lincoln became that? Lincoln made no provision for any citizenship rights for the freedmen, and introduced no legislation to provide for such.
2
Exactly. Lincoln was never a champion of Civil Rights, he just did what he thought was necessary to protect the Union. That was his sole goal. He enacted the Emancipation Proclamation because the Union was on the verge of winning the war. He personally wasn't anti- Slavery.
The democrats one day with have the presidency, house and senate. At that time I can imagine an assault weapons ban will be voted into law. What happens when red states are not complaint and continue to manufacture and sell to it's citizens? This is no different then when liberal states do not follow federal law in regards to illegal immigration. What will the Feds do when that happens? Armed conflict?
11
It's interesting how many republicans openly refer to murdering residents of democratic leaning states and a second treasonous civil war
2
Using the word "war" in this article frames the current political competition through an apocalyptic lens. Usually such exaggerations have little merit but we are a country that not long ago fought an apocalyptic war over similar issues and the sides that fought that war seem to be perfectly arrayed against each today. If we are experiencing just an extreme in normal politics we should be seeing 150 years worth of changes in demography and economics effecting then geographical breakdown of todays conflicts. But we do not. Instead we see almost the same geographical breakdown today as we did in the civil war and a perusal of history shows that this arrangement is persistent and immovable. The political parties have changed their definitions and our philosophies of government have evolved in profound ways, but this civil war divide remains organized and constant, strongly suggesting that there is something other than politics going on here.
If we look at todays problems through a civil war lens we are confronted with the specter of confederate states waging a behind the scenes war for generations and holding to their war mentality even as America has suffered through some of its greatest national challenges. This viewpoint suggests that just like before (in 1860), the confederate states do not see themselves as part of America and if that is true then there are literally no limits to how far they will go to destroy the America that the rest of us call the "union".
34
The civil war was predominately over whether or not the slave states could continue the expansion of slavery into new states. The current conflict is about revenge by certain disgruntled people who feel like our country isn't the same idyllic place the remember as children (and probably never really existed anyway, but hey with alternative facts anything is gospel) and want to punish other parts (state/local governments) for seeking economic prosperity and an expansion of the safety net. My hope is that these "disgruntled" people much like the Nazis last stand at the Battle of the Bulge are merely a temporal glitch who will be nullified by changing demographics and the American ideals that make us great:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
4
Linda Greenhouse objects to including the citizenship question on census forms. President Thomas Jefferson—a state’s rights advocate—first proposed a citizenship question in 1800. It was added to the census in 1820 with a question that asked for the number of “foreigners not naturalized” in the household. Decennial census surveys “consistently asked citizenship questions up until 1950.” After 1950, the question was dropped to save space on census forms. But the citizenship question returned when the census began sending out a short form and a long form. The citizenship question reappeared on the long from in 2000. However, the long form was discontinued after the 2000 census and replaced with the annual American Community Survey, which includes the citizenship question. (The ACS –not the decennial census—is now used to allocate federal funds.) However, the Constitution bases proportional representation in the House of Representatives on the decennial census. This is why the citizenship question should be asked on the decennial. The Constitution excluded noncitizens—slaves and Indians—from the census count. At the time of the first census in 1790, everyone else residing within the United States were regarded as citizens.
11
those two groups mentioned do not include all non citizens. so?
2
Slaves and Indians were excluded because they were not citizens. At the time, everyone else residing in the United States were citizens. There were no immigration laws in 1790. The intent was clearly to enumerate citizens. Why else would noncitizens be excluded?
There were no immigration laws in 1790. All residents except slave and Indians were regarded as citizens. Slaves and Indians were excluded from the census because they were not citizens. They were enumerated separately. Slaves were enumerated on “slave schedules.” Indian agents provide estimates of tribal populations. Even the census of the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) counted only whites and free blacks because the Indians and their slaves were not citizens.
Originally any immigrant into the US was immediately a citizen. The constitution told the country to count every adult and child. It still does. The laws of the US have changed. Now, citizenship has to be earned. The question is does the law that change citizenship also change the determination of representation by Congressional district. It is actually easy to see both sides of the argument. But as someone that actually believes the Constitution should be interpreted by its plain language it says to count everyone and determine districts by that, not by voting citizens. I am not overly happy about that, I actually think the other would be better, but it is what it is.
9
No Henry, the Cponstitution only says to count Citizens of the USA.
2
There will be so much to do when the Democrats take back Congress. I hope there will be time to deal with consideration of impeachment of those who don't follow the Constitution.
3
I'll remind all of you "Impeach-o-philes"...it was Obama who said he had a phone and a pen. Obama decided that he would rule by executive fiat--without Congress, and by ignoring the Constitution. Be careful when you define an impeachable offense too loosely--because if a Progressive ever gets back into the White House...turnabout is fair play.
3
When the Democrats take over in 2020, they can easily retaliate against the red states for eliminating the deduction for state and local income taxes. They can eliminate completely the deduction for state and local sales and property taxes, but give a full CREDIT for state and local income taxes. Just like you get a credit for foreign income taxes.
Any tax professional can tell you that a credit is worth far more than a deduction. States with high property and sales taxes can reduce them and then raise income taxes. They will lose no revenue, and will reduce the overall tax burden of their citizens and residents. All at the expense of the red states.
Blue states have no duty to subsidize the regressive, "soak the poor" tax systems of red states and their plantation economies.
BTW, I must have missed the complaints of the right that allowing deductions of and credits for foreign income taxes subsidizes foreign countries.
55
The travesty of the plan to curtail the census count by requiring the citizenship question is that most aliens, legal and undocumented alike, pay federal income and Social Security taxes. To intentionally deprive states with the highest numbers of alien residents of federal funds on this basis is truly an act of war. And truly unconscionable. You really have to hand it to the right wing - they have thought of everything, and have left no stone unturned. Democrats need to wake up, and stop bringing a pen knife to a gunfight.
81
No Michael, most of the Illegal aliens do not pay Federal Income tax or Social Security.
4
Or, more aptly and as a recent Times commenter said, "stop bringing kale to a gunfight."
But the single most important thing for Democrats to do at this point is simply show up to vote. Turnout in the '10 and '14 midterms was shameful.
10
Aliens may pay federal taxes, but that does not entitle them to representation. The taxes they pay are the cost of being noncitizen aliens in the country. If they don’t like it, they have citizenship elsewhere. To suggest that having aliens, legal or illegal, entities localities to have more political weight is insane. The government is for citizens, not guests.
Great piece, well written. Will just comment on how the citizenship question on the new census and the withholding of federal money as punishment for political disagreement is more of the same totalitarian quest for permanent political power that Fascist authoritarians always engage in.
Once voted in, totalitarians attack all the elements of decency, wisdom, and justice. The press, the vote, regulation, the safety net, the poor, the middle class, immigrants, blue states and cities, anyone who disagrees are all attacked, government itself, only the Dear Leader and his stooges speak truth, everyone else lies. The Goebbels, N. Korea handbook.
Reagan was bad enough, the beginning of ignorance and ideology triumphing over facts, statistics,ethics, and true knowledge. Clinton should be called Reagan II. But the two most egregious presidents did not win the popular vote. The obsolete Electoral College gave us W and Trump, with massive assistance from the right wing SCOTUS. More of us choose a candidate and we LOSE! Unique among nations.Look at the monstrous decline because of this absurd institution. The ignorant part of the citizenry got who they wanted because of the Founder's mistake. If the Electors are partisan hacks, the whole idea of a check on an unfit person is meaningless. The EC must go!
105
Totally disagree with you David. What you are saying then is that all the various presidential administrations from 1890 through 2010 were all totalitarian and fascist? FDR? Kennedy? Johnson even? Since it was only in 2010 that the question of citizenship was stopped. It was a standard question on census forms from 1890 through 1950, then, for unexplained reasons, was omitted in 1960 for everyone except residents of New York City and Puerto Rico. Beginning in 1970 and continuing through 2000, the Census Bureau used two different questionnaires to gather information — a short form sent to more than 80 percent of American households which did not inquire about citizenship, and a long form distributed to fewer than 20 percent of American households which did. The long form was discontinued after 2000, so in 2010 every household received the short form — meaning, in effect, that no one was asked for citizenship data in that year’s decennial census. But it wasn’t because any questions were removed, thus adding the question on citizenship freaks people out when in reality it is rather normal. Only it this hyper-partisan time does anyone really care. I live in an neighborhood that has lots of immigrants, a lot of them never fill out the census regardless of what questions are on it, for the same reasons that a lot of American citizens don't fill it out, lazy, don't care, what's the use, who needs the gov't knowing about you, etc etc etc
7
That's not going to happen David. the USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a Democracy and you need to accept that.
2
I disagree with your Clinton comment but everything else is spot-on.
5
This is a good reminder why legal rules and principles should be, and need to be, respected and applied evenhandedly; even when they seem to interfere with a laudable policy goal.
In the 80s and 90s Federalism was used to defeat certain liberal policies. At the same time, Rehnquist's vision of federalism preserved the Miranda rights from Congressional efforts to undo them. Today, federalism is protecting marginalised communities from an overreaching Republican (they no longer can be legitimately be described as "conservative") federal government.
The point is, what goes around comes around. This is precisely why "hate-speech" is and should enjoy first-amendment protection and why "criminals" should enjoy a right of privacy in their own homes and cars, and should have the right to confront and cross-examine even the most vulnerable of victims.
You never know when the pendulum will shift, and it is short-sighted to cast aside important legal concepts for policy wins.
14
America has always been a country of "rule of law," which is why a lot of people from around the world want to come here and live, work, and prosper, because they know the law will protect them, unlike in many 3rd World places. However, America has now reached a point where this "rule of law" is breaking down...the illegal immigration problems is just one part of many....
10
Trump & Co.: The hateful gift that keeps giving.
4
I must be one of the few people left in the'talking' classes who is not a Lawyer, that said, talk about judicial politics is ubiquitous in the press and academia today. Discussions of this topic, unfortunately, are often vague or inconsistent about the precise meaning of politics in judging. So cut to the chase. Are Law courts in the US becoming political institutions?
A judge in Hawaii rules on what all citizens in the US must and must not do in regard to immigration and this is binding. For many this ruling is jaw dropping. A recent editorial implicitly gestures at a distinction between the high politics of principle and grand social policy, and the low politics of crass, left–right, Republican–Democrat partisanship that is evident and growing at an alarming rate in the current US political climate
Party affiliation is not a perfect predictor of a judge’s behavior, some claim, however repeated studies have shown that they are. Now isn't that surprising? Judging is political; Conservatives resist weak-kneed squeamishness, Liberals take the same advice to heart, albeit in the opposite political direction. So what's new? Law is a subspecies of Politics that applies to the silks of both colours But Ideological Influence is not Partisanship. Judges, like us all, are malleable. Maybe that is a contributing reason why the US continues to seem hell bent on tearing itself asunder.
12
Totally agree, this shopping for judges that the Dems/Libs are doing is going to come back and bite them in the you know what, once the powers that be flip...Nothing will ever get done....I blame the Repubs just as much as the Dems...
2
In keeping with this sentiment, let's also make it policy to prevent the federal government from using any coercive tactics to force the states to bend to its will, something not unique to the Trump administration.
In the past, for example, the feds have threatened to withhold highway funds if states didn't change their drinking age and to lower the speed limits to 55. SOCTUS thought THAT was okay under South Dakota v. Dole regarding the spending clause in forcing states to raise their drinking age.
Under Obama the Education Department threatened states with less funds for passing bathroom use bills. That was apparently okay too, though ultimately it didn't come to pass.
A prime problem is the states rely too much on Washington. DC takes a lot of cash in the form of taxes from state citizens and then plays Santa to redistribute it back to the states, along with legions of rules and caveats. Sometimes people like that and suck it up, and, as in this case, sometimes they clearly don't. You can't have it both ways. If your vision of government is that DC should pretty much have its finger in every pie then why are you complaining?
And as bad as Congress is with it, we have made a mockery of it when we allow Executive Orders or department fiats to accomplish the same sort of behavior. A recalibration more in line with the constitution is seriously needed.
12
You're overlooking congress. Congress passed the 55 mph limit. Congress authorized the drinking age law, at least tacitly. Same with seat belts. And all three had both a scientific basis and legitimate public health rationale.
In the current cases, congress is mute. The administration is not free to attach arbitrary rules to monies authorized by congress. The administration's job is to faithfully — hah! — execute the law. In denying funds by fiat, it both fails to fulfill its function and usurps Congress's power of the purse.
However much you may like your Santa Claus analogy, the nation as a whole has a stake in a wide array of interstate programs. If you don't like federal highway funds, consider the state of the nation's highways before the interstate highway system. Maine to Florida was via routes 1 and 301, with turnpikes in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware. Do not the citizens of the northeast have an interest in transport west and south of Pennsylvania? Should they not be allowed to spend money to improve roads elsewhere for their own benefit? Is not safety on those roads their concern, too?
The federal government is not imposed on us by Mars. It is elected, sometimes wisely, sometimes fecklessly. When it exceeds its authority, that's not evidence its proper authority was too vast. It's evidence of malfeasance, which can and should be corrected. As Sessions will soon learn.
14
George--Unless, of course, they violate the Constitution, as was the case before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
6
The founders would be appalled to see how the Congress increased the power of the federal government by passing the 16th amendment which gave it an additional revenue stream to be used as a cudgel to beat the states into submission. The income tax also made the 18th amendment possible by replacing the taxes on alcohol which the Constitution said was to be the federal government's income along with customs duties. I wish someone could explain to me how this was sold to the state legislatures which had to approve it as well. Didn't they see what was possible? That they were undoing the protections our founders worked so hard to prevent?
2
Come on, Linda, ICE and the feds generally aren’t “commandeering local courthouses”, they’re simply refusing to normalize illegal aliens, as some are – they’re trying to enforce our laws. But states and cities that ARE trying to normalize illegal aliens are directly challenging the feds by actively resisting the enforcement of those laws. We DID fight a civil war over similar principles, and the resistant states lost, at immense cost in blood and foregone economic development for over a century.
It’s outrageous that Chicago should forbid federal agents from meeting with suspected illegal aliens in local jails. Those federal agents are trying to enforce laws passed by Republicans AND Democrats, and signed by presidents of BOTH parties. How is such an act NOT seeking to make immigration policy in Chicago autonomously and in conflict with the federal government that is constitutionally charged with making and enforcing such policy?
Apart from the specific motivating issue, how is Chicago (or California cities, for that matter) any different from Charleston, South Carolina on 12 April 1861 (firing on Fort Sumter)?
You lost an election, just as Southern Democrats lost an election in 1860. The current mini-insurrections we see today over immigration laws make sanctuary advocates precisely analogous to Johnny Rebs.
That didn’t end well for the nation generally (other than with the emancipation of black slaves), but it certainly didn’t end well for the Johnny Rebs.
12
A rational person would conclude that monies that Congress appropriates for local law enforcement and that the president is charged with disbursing are dependent on cities NOT engaging in open insurrection against the federal government. Predicting the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court can be like predicting the antics of the stock market, and I very rarely do either. However, I’d be willing to bet that the federal appeals court ruling that blocks the withholding of such funds for Chicago will be reversed by the Supreme Court with the obvious motivation of sending a clear message that we don’t tolerate insurrection.
NEW eligibility rules? (??!) How about that you not be led by Jefferson Davis?
9
Hmph. Instead of finding actual criminals, instead of fining employers who year upon year knowingly employ people illegally, our federal officials choose to shoot fish in a barrel, arresting people for cooperating.
How many stories have we heard of people here 10 and 20 years, with families and businesses, sometimes married to American citizens, arrested and deported from the courthouse door after filing paperwork? How often do you need to policemen explain that community trust is essential to law enforcement, and that people won't come forth if they fear deportation? How many kids aren't in school because their parents are afraid their attendance will attract federal attention?
Somehow I doubt the citizens of New York and Chicago and San Francisco suddenly developed an overweening love for their neighbors who've overstayed their visas. They didn't suddenly becomes states' rights advocates, eager to shut down the federal government. They just want to be free to conduct their affairs, and protect their population to the best of their ability, without being undermined by the federal government.
Why is that such a bad thing?
9
James:
How are illegal aliens NOT criminals? We're not sending in the CIA on these round-ups, we're sending in police officials specifically organized to enforce our immigration laws.
HOW "many stories have we heard of people here 10 and 20 years, with families and businesses, sometimes married to American citizens, arrested and deported from the courthouse door after filing paperwork?" Come on, James, people married to U.S. citizens who have been here for years (NOT illegally if they're married to U.S. citizens) are not the prime targets of ICE, as there are plenty of illegals who haven't yet built lives here who are more appropriate targets. And Linda's big kvetch is that ICE wants to interrogate people in local jails. Shades of Trump's argument about criminals!
What sanctuary cities seek to do is a "bad thing" when the way they've chosen to do it counters federal policy, to which they are subject.
3
I think we all agree we need some type of responsible immigration reform. But why does the NYT continue to use the term undocumented immigrants....when the correct term is illegal immigrant. To make this clear, the right word to use is illegal simply because they are here illegally in the USA. Undocumented is not a clear description of the act which has left those in violation of the law. They committed a crime by entering the country without permission. I know progressives want to stop others from using the term illegal immigrant, often invoking the idea that no human being is illegal, but that's nonsense. Human beings sometimes commit illegal acts. If it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't round people up and deport them.The term is accurate. It's not a semantic discussion. I think, when the left hears illegal, they decided, well, let's just change the word & we'll be done with it. Is there something about illegal immigrant per se that is so dehumanizing that it can't be used in polite discourse for people who are trying to have an honest conversation & aren't trying to spin it?
We should not be afraid to speak about this problem in an unbiased way. We need to speak clearly so we define what is at stake. Undocumented seems to imply that some people forgot to fill out the correct paper work when crossing the border. It wasn't. They entered the U.S. knowing they were breaking the law. They are here illegally without permission of the the U.S. That's why it's an issue.
18
" They committed a crime by entering the country without permission." m
Many immigrants enter with documentation, but fail to re-register according to the rules.
"Human beings sometimes commit illegal acts."
That doesn't make them illegal people. Otherwise our highways are full of illegal people who don't keep their insurance up to date or don't follow the laws on the highway.
If you shine the light on society, you may find several illegal acts such as money-laundering, insider trading, illegal campaign contributions. Unless we look closely, these acts (crimes) will escape our notice. These perpetrators are committing crimes which range from mere violations to felonies.
2
"But why does the NYT continue to use the term undocumented immigrants....when the correct term is illegal immigrant. To make this clear, the right word to use is illegal simply because they are here illegally in the USA."
Actually the federal immigration laws call them "Illegal Aliens. They are not considered immigrants.
4
Thank you Ms. Greenhouse. As usual clear and perceptive.
Yes a civil war where civility doesn’t exist.
Making the illegal legal has been the way for some time and therefore a nation of laws is an oxymoron.
I fear there is an actual state of war within the US that will be used by Pompeo, Bolton et al to start a war in Iran.
What a mess.
6
Get rid of Citizens United, the Electoral College and declare the Gorsuch seat void. That's a start.
14
None of that will happen Barbara. The USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a Democracy. The USA has never been a Democracy.
6
Did I mention Healthcare for All? That's a keeper!
“It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power.”
A hopeful dispatch from one benighted center of resistance. Bless them; good luck in the coming slaughter.
Back at Headquarters, SCOTUS manages the many campaigns currently under way, going at it with horrifying gusto.
You describe one such campaign here, wide in scope and critical in implication, but one of many.
You mistake this campaign for the whole Civil War.
You're wrong. On many fronts we are fighting the war of wealth and institutionalized inter-generational power against the rest of us.
In this war we are beset by traitors. Scott Pruitt for example, has spent his career scratching, lying, clawing his way into the rich guy life boat, the one that will grow inexorably richer and more exclusive unless it is forcefully overturned. But he doesn't care what you think; he doesn't care if you die. He doesn't care if your planet dies with you.
He's got his illicit millions, and he's currying favor with those richer than he could ever dream of being.
In this bigger war, SCOTUS controls the battlefield and has spent a generation undercutting the law and the spirit of the Founders. They are far gone in their bias for business, the rich and powerful. There is no law or precedent they will not warp or disregard in that sad pursuit.
There's your real war.
Immigration is, to them, a test case.
8
The federal government has frequently denied federal funding or threaten to deny federal funding to states that fail to comply with federal laws or regulations. The Obama administration threaten to withhold federal school funding from states that failed to comply with the Department of Education guidance that public schools must allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice rather than those matching their biological sex. The drinking age is 21 nationwide because the federal government withheld highway funding from states that refused to comply or refused to enforce the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. It also withheld funding from states that refused to enforce federally imposed speed limits.
12
Aldermen in Chicago, that bastion of civic participation, do not and cannot pass "laws." They pass ordinances. Greenhouse knows better, and calling such ordinances "laws" is equivalent to calling a meaningless high school diploma a "degree" which I suppose is next. Just as she knows calling the current civic disagreement over whether people who enter the country illegally a "civil war" is a totally inappropriate exaggeration. 700,000 Americans died in our Civil War, in case she forgot.
8
Stop giving respect to those who have not earned it .The conservative. Men on this court have minds that are closed.
Is it a coincidence that the humanitarian thoughts are held by the women on the court and one man now and then?
The conservative men appointed by other primarily conservative men should be empeached.Their cruelty and ignorance is
Intolerable.May our Republic somehow recover from this assault.
5
The civil war hyperbole is destructive, unnecessary, and in other corners of the internet is fueled by America's enemies, trying to weaken the country. Your spreading of this foreign infection in a respectable newspaper should be reconsidered.
Republicans have been fighting against our democracy for many decades, with Jim Crow laws put in by white southerners, who are now Republicans, with vote suppression performed by Republican Secretaries of state, and Governors like one Bush that gave us another. Even by our current Attorney General, in earlier days in his shame filled career.
The actions you describe are part of that, not worse than some things, perhaps more structural than others.
Please don't feed the fires
4
Progressives might want to rethink the whole Cold Civil War http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-cold-civil-war/ ,
"But of course you won’t – instead, you're doubling down by trying to nullify the results of the election because you don't like the fact that you've been rejected and that you're out of power. Except we're not going to simply shrug and go back to letting you dictate how we live.
Donald Trump is a warning. Trump is the best case scenario. If you somehow depose him via your smarmy shenanigans, what comes along next is really going to upset you. You need to understand something.
Trump is not our last chance. He's your last chance. [ https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/08/03/democrats-dont... ] "
2
I read your referenced articles and feel saddened that there are people who would think and believe this way. You should get out more. The problem with Americans is too many of us don't travel internationally so we become insular and afraid of others. Now we are afraid of each other thus we arm ourselves for protection against our neighbors. Well, neighbor you seem to be suggesting the Cold Civil War will heat up if we don't do things the way you want. Bring it on because I am appalled at what is going on in this country and our lack of civility and the suppression of "Christian" values most specifically "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".
8
Linda Greenhouse thinks unauthorized immigrants should not be arrested and deported, but she doesn’t propose other methods of enforcing immigration laws. If she thinks that anyone who succeeds in eluding the Border Patrol at the border or overstays their visa should be granted citizenship or legal resident status, she should have the integrity to say so.
9
That's not at all what the article says, nor is it what it is about.
3
Perhaps you should re-read her column, Mr. Case. While Professor Greenhouse clearly dislikes the methods used by the Trump administration, she focuses on the issue of whether the federal government can force the states to assist in the round up of illegal aliens. There are two separate questions here, but she deals only with the latter one.
8
Please. I wonder how you'd feel if the feds commandeered your car, not in a emergency, but at their convenience. Because that's effectively what Chicago is objecting to: forcing its officials, on the taxpayers' dime, to do the bidding of federal officials. Since the Justice Department has no legal authority to require compliance, it's reached for extralegal authority: withholding funds over which it has no discretion.
I can't speak for Greenhouse, but I'll tell you what I think, to save you speculation. Immigration violations should be subject to a statute of limitations. I say 10 years, but you pick your number. After that, provided no other laws were broken, they gain the right to stay legally. They become legal residents, not citizens, subject to equal protection under the law.
I don't espouse that view because I want to reward lawbreaking. I want a rational policy, not to spend money and time fighting victimless crimes. At some point you're better off recognizing reality than enforcing fantasy. That's where common-law marriage came from, and why the IRS can't chase you after 6 years.
7
The concept of Federal sovereignty is what is really operative here and should have been mentioned early on in this piece. Not only does this legal construction apply to the legalization of cannabis and the inability of an individual (for legal purposes this would necessarily include a corporation) to bank the proceeds of the sale of cannabis in the USA. Nope. We go further now and see how it affects the enforcement of Title 8, United States Code (immigration law). Either a state is a member of the federation we call the United States, subject to federal sovereignty, or one is not. We settled the issue of secession in 1865...
6
According the Rehnquist court, the issue was not so decided. Rightly or wrongly, the Republican justices seem bent on diminishing federal power over the states.
1
It would appear that Federal sovereignty is invoked whenever it's convenient for political purposes to do so, then, as with cannabis and its proceeds.
The conflict described by Professor Greenhouse stems directly from the effort of the Framers to divide sovereignty between the federal and state governments, an undertaking which the political thinkers they consulted thought impossible. James Madison and his colleagues finessed the issue by declaring that final authority rested with "the people," rather than with any level of government. But this sleight of hand did not provide much guidance when conflicting goals pitted Washington against some state governments.
In a case which bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the current one over immigration, Congress passed a fugitive slave act (1850) which required both local officials and private citizens in the free states to help apprehend runaway bondsmen. This assertion of authority by Washington deeply offended many northerners, and some states defied the law. For its opponents, the law represented a conspiracy to force them to help preserve slavery.
Trump's goal appears to involve a similar effort to require cooperation from local officials who regard his immigration policies as vicious and harmful. Before we idealize the states, however, we should remember that a number of them have spearheaded efforts to limit minority voting through the id laws.
The division of sovereignty between different levels of government, an arrangement attempted by few other countries, may serve as a check on power, but it doesn't always promote justice.
6
I look forward to your columns - great knowledge and insight, I always learn something. And I agree with your assessment of the current state of affairs in the Court. Most troubling to me was the jettison of all norms in the interim ruling allowing the Muslim ban to proceed, overruling general agreement among the courts who had heard the cases that the ban was discriminatory and unsupported by any evidence of threat of actual terrorism, and the Court went ahead with no hearing. This feels like a pre-decided decision, with no concern for the law. I hope Justice Kennedy understands what the conservative four, and perhaps he as well, are doing to our democracy and our courts.
3
The article states California has five million non-citizen residents. How do we know this number is correct if we do not have an "actual enumeration" of citizens and non-citizens?
8
We had a census. And we have other corroborating data. How many people live in California is no mystery.
The point of the citizenship question on the coming census is not to fool anyone regarding how many California residents are there illegally. The point is to undercount that number because, as a matter of law, the census determines the allocation of monies and representation. Even if it is demonstrably inaccurate, the federal government is obliged to use census data. That's why it's imperative the census be accurate.
4
As far as I'm concerned, the stolen SCOTUS seat, was the current civil war's Ft Sumter. It was a direct assault on the,legal, elected will of the people as described in the Constitution. As a lawyer, Neil Gorsuch should have refused the position that was such an obvious affront to the Constitution he supposedly swore to uphold. His very first act, that of being sworn in under such circumstances, was an indication of his complete distain for legal, democratic norms.
215
You're wrong Eric. The Republicans did not violate the constitution when they refused to conside4r Merrick Garland and they did not violate any laws. The Constitution doesn't set a time table for the Senate to consider a SCOTUS nominee nor does it require the Senate to even consider a SCOTUS nominee.
4
Interestingly, you're both correct.
Eric: a President has the right to nominate who he likes for SCOTUS -- but Congress has the right to confirm OR NOT. There is nothing illegal about not confirming and no time limit to how long they have to consider any candidate.
3
"cap on tax deductions that will strike at residents of cities and states where high tax rates support decent public services."
Of course, this is a deduction, which means if unrestricted they pay less federal tax. So the "decent public services" by the federal government are stricken.
6
No. The citizens of Kentucky are free to raise their own taxes to improve public services. If they choose not to, that's their business, sort of.
Many social services are provided jointly, including Medicaid and food stamps. Highways, too. State taxes bolster funding not provided by the federal government, reflecting national stinginess. New Yorkers are simply supplementing federal funds, to provide better medical care and housing and food and highways.
I ask you: why should the wealthy homeowner have to pay both for better local services and taxes on those services to the federal government, when it's the federal government that failed to provide them in the first place? And why are the taxes of the wealthy homeowner in the impecunious states, which fail to educate their kids or fund their colleges adequately, entitled to a subsidy from his compatriot in the wealthier state?
6
It’s odd that Linda Greenhouse cites New York v. United States. In that case, New York argued that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment, which declares that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.” However, the Supreme Court found the act was consistent with the Tenth Amendment.
The act obliged states or combinations of states to dispose of waste generated within their borders. It used threes of incentives to compel compliance. The first set used monetary incentives. States that met milestone could receive funds from a federal escrow account; those that failed to meeting milestones could not draw federal funds. The second set authorized states to regulate access to waste disposal sites. The third set—referred as the “Take Title Provision”—required states that failed to provide for the disposal of waste by a particular date must, upon the request of the waste's generator, must take title to and possession of the waste.
The court found that the act’s monetary incentives and access surcharge incentive were consistent with the Tenth Amendment. It found fault only with the Take Tile Provision.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/144/case.html
7
President Obama set the stage with his administration's "Dear Colleagues" letters that threatened to take federal funding from school districts that did not advance his ideas of transgender rights. He then turned a blind-eye to states that flagrantly violated such federal laws on marijuana. Yet even as he winked at so-called "sanctuary" cities and states, he held firm that the federal government had sole authority over immigration to enjoin Arizona from patrolling its border with Mexico.
Obama's arbitrary and capricious use of executive power--often to the plaudits of liberal media--set the precedent for Trump to follow suit. Except, the law is on Trump's side, regardless what activist judges on inferior courts might claim.
If you take the money, you have to obey the rules. You cannot do as Oakland's mayor did and thwart federal law enforcement and then claim a right to federal money.
9
"you know nothing, John Snow."
5
Except the law is on Obama's side. Trump is being forced by the courts to explain how DACA is unlawful, as the administration claims, shamelessly. Pruitt is being forced to defend his unscientific findings regarding the clean power plan.
DACA was never "overreach", as the Tea Party so likes to put it. It was simply a rational allocation of finite resources. If congress didn't like it, congress is empowered to pass laws against it. Congress could even allocate more money for enforcement, as it has repeatedly done — to modest effect — for decades.
Yet and still, there is nowhere near enough money in the budget, and never will be, to deport 12 million people. DACA simply created a system of clear priorities, to give greater certainty to people and let them live normal lives (sort of) instead of under constant, unnecessary, pointless dread, and giving them some modicum of protection under the law. In a nation of laws, how is that not a good thing?
7
I read that the Obama Administration tried to deny millions of dollars to North Carolina over the transgender/bathroom law dispute. The two main effects: a backlash that strengthened Republicans in the N. C. legislature, and the Trump Administration has learned how to bully states that don't support the Administration's policies on illegal immigrants. As somebody said back in 1970s: in politics, causes have effects.
8
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for yet another brilliant essay. We're already seeing the results of McConnell's illegal ploy to deny Mr. Garland (and we citizens of the U.S.). This is quite depressing.
6
McConnell's decision not to consider Garland's nomination broke NO law. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" but imposes NO time limit. The Senate can proceed at its own sweet time without breaking any law. It may violate custom, but that's a different matter. Delay, too, has precedent.
5
Remember that Joe Biden (1991) and Chuck Schumer (2007) gave speeches on why Democrats should not hold SCOTUS confirmation hearings in a presidential election year. (Biden actually had blocked Appeals Court hearings from 1990-2003 and Leahy blocked them from 2001-2003).
So McConnell and the Republicans were simply following the Biden-Schumer rule in not holding hearings for Merrick Garland.
6
It's funny to see Ms. Greenhouse rediscover federalism when it's convenient for her. She's actually correct- like a stopped clock. It's consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling on the Medicare changes in Obamacare, which were found unconstitutional. I don't recollect a similar defense of federalism in that case...maybe I missed it.
As to the census, Linda immediately reverts back to form in defending her political preferences versus what is legal. Is it necessary to have a citizenship question on the census - probably not, but that could be said about many of the questions it contains. But it certainly isn't legal. Remember, there are millions here legally who are not citizens who wouldn't but put off by that question one bit. If Ms. Greenhouse is worried about "depressed participation" in the Census, I'm sure there's a lot that could be done to improve participation beyond that one single question.
Finally, as to the SALT provisions in the tax bill, it's going to hurt me personally in the pocketbook. But bigger picture, that doesn't mean that the federal government should subsidize the high tax rates in many blue states. Hopefully this will be one more curb in the ability of states to raise taxes. Somehow, there's never a concern on the left on double taxation when it comes to investment income and the like.
9
Mike - I make a buck; I pay taxes on it. I pay it to my plumber; he pays taxes on it. Money is frequently taxed when it changes hands, Double taxation? No.
GE makes a buck; they pay taxes on it. They pay it to their stockholders as a dividend; they pay taxes on it. Double taxation? No.
The main purpose of a corporation is so that people can invest money without taking responsibility for the actions of the corporation. If you are part owner of a company that does something bad, you may lose everything you have. If you own stock in a corporation that does something bad, you can only lose your investment.
The way this is accomplished is that the corporation is regarded as a separate legal entity from the collection of its investors. The cost for this protection is that this entity, the corporation, must pay taxes when it makes money and the shareholders must pay taxes when they are paid by the corporation for the use of their investment.
Got it?
10
Not really. But now do death taxes.
Len, I always enjoy your well informed comments but must point out that GE has reportedly paid no taxes for years. The whole story is complicated by clever and semi-opaque accounting: https://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/
but I'd bet my left...er, leg that any taxes paid amount to a small fraction of that 35% they moaned about for years.
Figuring out what the Democrat Party stands for these days, seems somewhat difficult at times. They currently want to be thought of as the party of fiscal responsibility--which is ironic, since they just finished presiding over the doubling of our national debt--to 20 trillion under Obama.
But as confusing, is Dem support for open borders. As Milton Friedman once said, "you can't have open borders and a welfare state". He understood the financial ruin resulting from the pairing of those 2 concepts. And we now have California as an example of just what happens.
But make no mistake, that's what liberals want. Of course, taxes can always be raised on the hated wealthy, in order to fund it all, right?
So the civil war Greenhouse refers to, is something the Democrats very much want. It is part and parcel of the "Resistance Movement". The irony is simply is this: during the Obama Administration, the state of Arizona, in an attempt to stem the flow of illegal aliens, instituted its own enforcement policies--which liberals vociferously opposed. They cited the Supremacy Clause as a reason--arguing that immigration enforcement is a responsibility of the federal government.
But now there's a new sheriff in Washington, California and other blue states want to spin their hats around backwards, and instead argue the primacy of States' Rights on issues of immigration.
The Dems want this war. They want open borders--and a welfare state. Good luck with that.
14
We are actually doing quite fine in CA, with budget surpluses as of late and a rainy day fund. And still, apparently, has enough left over to support states like yours, which appears to take more in federal spending than it pays in taxes. You should be thanking CA every day for the welfare we pay to states like Vermont.
10
Friedman was a crank and you don't know what Democrats stand for because you refuse to look. You simply take talking points from Fox news and pretend they are informed opinions of your own. Nobody is asking for open borders and I challenge you to produce a quote proving me wrong. California is thriving so your implication otherwise is nothing more complicated than a lie often repeated by no-nothing conservatives. And what's with the unnecessary commas?
6
"Open borders" . . . "a welfare state". Looks like all your "news" comes from Fox. It's not difficult to understand what the Democratic Party stands for---government can and should be made better and do more to improve opportunity for the less fortunate in society. The G.O.P., however, no longer believes in limiting governmental authority, being accountable to the people. Instead, it supports concentrating more power in the Executive branch, and concentrating more power in the Senate majority leader while professing to eliminate regulations, which would only give more power to the fascists. Whatever the G.O.P. believes, it is not "conservative" by any reasonable measure.
5
Linda, how can this be true? The Republicans favor a small federal government.
1
The illegal and immoral action of Mitch McConnell to steal a seat on the SCOTUS has threatened our future election results. The republican party has lost it's legitimacy in our 2 party system.
252
I think there should have been hearings on the Obama appointee, but it is not correct to say it was illegal, while the constitution says the Senate must engage in advice and consent for appointees, it sets no time limit and does compel them to actually consider an appointee. That may not be ideal, but until that changes it is not illegal to do what happened.
11
Sir, you wrote: "it sets no time limit and does compel them to actually consider an appointee. " In context, it is plain that your meaning is this: "it sets no time limit and does NOT compel them to actually consider an appointee." That is, since there is no time limit, there never comes a time when the Senate is derelict in duty for not considering an appointee. I take it that the missing "not" is essentially a typographical error. Did I misunderstand you?
It is not illegal but could be a dangerous president if say the Democrats win both Houses in November and two conservative judges fall it now would be fair to leave a liberal court for two years following McConnell’s example.
You will then see a very uncivil war in America.
2
More great work here Ms. Greenhouse.
The same sort of comparison occurred to me after reading about this push on the part of Sessions and Trump concerning sanctuary cities and recalling the refusal of many states to forcefully participate in the return of slaves who had fled to the north prior to the Civil War.
We appear to be gearing up for another underground railroad system, to protect honest, hardworking people who happen to live here among us but lack legal status.
It begins to look less likely that we can ever "buy back" our Democracy from the 1% who have already bought it up.
And the alternative is?
56
Conservatives are often in favor of state's rights as expressed in the constitution; essentially powers belong to the states except as expressly stated as belonging to the federal government. But today that only goes as far as the states that agree with their policies. But then that has been the take of both parties in recent history and SCOTUS has pretty much permitted it.
15
The assertion expressed in your first sentence has not been the law of the land for decades. It ignores the General Welfare clause.
"Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes & to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. ...To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."
2
As a retired lawyer, I always enjoy your columns. What you get very right (no pun intended) here is that there is a civil war going on. In fact, I have maintained for many years that the Civil War never really ended, at least for the losing side. The front has now expanded and the war is for the most part being fought with disinformation, propaganda, voter suppression, gerrymandering, union busting, the fomenting of racial and religious bias and massive amounts of money rather than actual shooting (although young men of color might beg to disagree). Nevertheless, the fact that there is truly a war happening is something too often ignored by the so-called mainstream press.
485
Mike, you write a convincing argument that the New Civil War is but an extension of the sectional, North vs South, Civil War. Yet, I am not sold.
It seems to me that the New Civil War is being fought over how the wealth of the nation - especially that accruing to the nation since the end of WWII will be distributed (distributive justice - go john Rawls). It is more a class war than a war to maintain a way of life.
One thing both wars do have in common - there are those (and they are legion) that fight (vote) against their own interests.
24
Although, in 1860, most of the nation's wealthiest people were in the South...
The first CW was also a class war, one to enable the wealthy Southern land and slaveowners to continue to dominate in their own region and in the nation. This one is not significantly different but has the owner class and corporate powers stepping in where slave owners used to be.
History shows that no attempt by a minority to rule a majority will last for a long time, although it can exist for a "long short time" (see South Africa).
As you say, this is war. There will be a major battle this November, when the Democrats may be able to take the House, and therefore block any more legislation. Then there will be another major battle in 2020. If the Democrats can take the Congress and the Presidency at that time, there is a lot they can do.
But as the other side is not playing by the rules, they cannot either. If needed, this includes increasing the number of judgeships, including on the Supreme Court, to counter the Federalist Society appointees, ungerrymandering all legislative districts (perhaps by requiring proportional representation), and undoing the tax cuts.
97
As far as illegal immigration is concern, the Trump administration doesn't need any new legislation to deport undocumented aliens. It is simply enforcing laws already enacted.
6
Taking the House would help but Democrats really need to take back control of the Senate, as that would allow them to block nominees for administrative positions who are incompetent, corrupt, or hostile to the mission of the agency they are being put in charge of, as well as to block judicial nominees who are either incompetent or radically conservative.
5
We are in the midst of a coup d'etat, one that's been brewing for years, and even been stated repeatedly by those instituting it. Remember "Perpetual majority" in the Bush years? DeLay's and Rove's plan to cut out from access ANY donor who gave a nickel to a Democrat? Or, more recently, McConnell's successful but highly destructive effort to "steal" a Supreme Court seat for the GOP? What about Cheney's musings about suspending the 2004 Presidential election?
Now, in the "perfect storm" of a Speaker and Senate Majority Leader unwilling to act against a President of their own party despite his blatant attempts to usurp their power, and the power of the Courts, we are seeing the entire destruction of the Constitution as a reality, getting ever more imminent every day. And we've seen this week that the 5 "Conservative" Justices are just as willing to be complicit in this deconstruction of our Democratic Republic.
395
Bill Maher has been calling it a slow rolling coup since Trump was installed. He's right on the money. Vote #2018Bluewave in November, we may have one more chance to turn this Titanic collision around.
30
Unless Trump plans to close down the election in November, their day of trying to crush the advantages of the Blue states will be finished starting in January 2019. Then, they will have to come begging for programs that they support. After all, the Blue states heavily subsidize the Red states and that's not going to change anytime soon.
In short, all these attempts to reverse the trend towards a stronger Federal government and a multi-national world (globalism) are just interludes of reactionaries grumbling about the state of the world). As for "The South", remember it's the region that is famous for 'lost causes'.
3
The Trump administration is reaching back into the Jim Crow-era for the justification of its draconian intentions: states' rights.
This was the argument--that the individual states were sovereign and thereby better able to govern themselves without interference from a federal government--that was the baseline for "lawful" segregation in the South and de facto segregation in the North.
What this president intends, of course, is to complete the division between North and South (or liberal and conservative, if you will) by punishing progressive (blue) states at the expense of the far-less (red) successful states. The requirement that citizens declare a racial identifier on the Census is merely another voter ID law, a check that is meant to be chilling and repressive. Might one be correct in assuming if Stephen Miller's virulent behest in promoting an American national policy of "racial purity" is driving this Hitlerian directive?
This "new civil war" also aims at the main (financial) strengths of the blue states: revenue from tax money that the Trump administration wishes to be capped and transferred to red states. Rampant deregulation of industries with harmful results (coal; polluted water; less-efficient automobiles; ignored infrastructure, e.g.) pushed hard by a special interest bloc and waved through by a bought and yawning Congress.
An independent federal judiciary is our final bulwark from tyranny but it is menaced by a politicized (hard-right) Supreme Court.
129
On the plus side, the judiciary seems to have become the supreme branch of government, at least in its ability to bring to a halt quick expansions of federal power. That seems to exert a slowing or moderating effect on the impact of drastic changes initiated by the executive or legislative branches.
That transfer of authority can easily explode, however. The Dred Scott Decision was a direct intervention to quell turbulent daily politics, and it was such a violent assertion of federal power over Free States and freed persons that it triggered the old Civil War. We still have that Achilles Heel in our Constitution.
5
An unelected judiciary should not be the most powerful branch of government. A proper balance between the three branches is the only way to success.
5
The author of the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney, was a democrat and close friend of Andrew Jackson. The Democrats put his statue in front of the Statehouse in Annapolis during Reconstruction. It remained there until removed by Republican Governor, Larry Hogan.
So please, would you like to continue with your analogies?
6
You do not read much, do you. The racists left the Democratic party in the 60s (or abandoned their racism) for the Republican Party. Taney, Jackson, Davis, the Klan - they would all be (and are) Republicans today. Just look at who the Klan endorsed (for the first time in decades) in the 2016 Presidential election. Stop being obtuse.
Actually there are other fronts in this war: every state where Republicans have complete control of government.
Not only are they pulling the same "starve the beast" tactics by slashing taxes- witness Kansas and Louisiana, but laws of pre-emption where state government is prohibiting local governments from taking particular actions. The GOP- a party that so often extolls the virtues of localized governance - is forbidding cities and towns from acting on Community Broadband, Minimum Wage rules and many other issues.
Democrats who are hoping for a return to power should be under no illusion that cleaning up the mess and destruction wrought by NeoConservatives at every level of government will take many years and a lot of work to accomplish. At the Federal Level the first thing should be a repeal of the delayed fuse debt bomb unleashed in the GOP Tax Scam passed late last year, before it kneecaps the budget of the Federal Government by loading even more debt on the books.
One of the great failures of national media in recent years is covering the ongoing evil of ALEC- the American Legislative Exchange Council- in State government. Their cookie cutter laws and rules have accomplished much at the state level that Republicans have failed to accomplish at the Federal level. Look at any state where Republicans control the assembly and the Governor's Mansion and take a look around.
Then there are the courts you mention- complete with a stolen Supreme Court seat.
297
Here is a way to think of taxes & the federal debt that I think is more fruitful than the usual kitchen table one.
People believe that the purpose of taxes is to pay for government operations. If you ask yourself the question "Where does the money I use to pay my taxes come from in the first place?", you will see you are putting the cart before the horse.
The federal government can create as much money as it needs. It then spends this money on government operations, e.g. the military, roads & bridges, research, education, etc. In this way money gets to you.
Now while there is no theoretical limit on the creation of money, there is a practical one. If too much money is sent to the private sector, there will be excessive inflation. Taxes take some of this money back. Hence the purpose of taxes is to adjust the amount of money in the economy.
Note, however, if the budget is balanced, there will be no new money sent to the private sector to support a growing economy. Even worse, if the government shows a surplus & pays down the debt, money will be leeched out of the private sector. If enough money is taken out of the private sector, the economy will crash. This has happened all6 times the debt has been paid down 10% or more.
Also a trade deficit takes money out of the economy. Hence to support a growing economy, the deficit must be larger than the trade deficit.
Except for a brief period in 2003, this condition was not met from 1996 to 2008. And the economy crashed.
11
David....It's true. The media doesn't discuss the destructive effects of ALEC or of private organized money in our politics. Why?
It never traces the cause /effect relation of megadonor money on a myriad of issues---taxes, jobs, health care, gun safety, etc. Why?
It doesn't cover the many groups trying to reform our campaign financing, to restore some influence of average citizens on lawmaking. Why?
Of course it never talk about how the media makes big profits from campaign ads that swamp our voters-- our biggest election expense, needing billionaire donors to finance.
And it's never mentioned that other democracies don't even allow privately paid ads in their elections, so that special interests don't dominate their politics. See 'campaign advertising wiki'.
Could ask then---how does EU media make good profits without privately paid campaign ad fees? Where are their lobbyists to pressure lawmakers? Don't they realize corporate money is 'free speech'?
22
ALEC, writing laws yet never elected. How can that be? Dark Money running our governments.
3
'States' Rights' only mattered to conservatives when it came to things like preserving segregation and right-to-work laws. Now that conservatives run the federal government they're opposed States' Rights when it comes to issues like marijuana legalization, gay marriage legalization, gun control, etc.
267
And preferring the life of the unborn to the born. Death to doctors and women and uppity other races.
14
I don't understand how local governments and states can help people who are breaking federal law to evade arrest?
As for taxes, getting rid of deduction loopholes only hurts the well to do, if those well to do live in blue states, that doesn't concern me, ought to get rid of loopholes for corporations too.
7
Perhaps when those federal laws are changed your opinion may change?
And which loopholes have been gotten rid of?
Local governments and states are NOT helping people who are breaking the law. They are simply leaving the enforcement of federal law to the federal government.
14
Also, somsai, these blue states already are supporting the red states. This tax bill only makes that worse.
10
One of the American truths is that gravity centers in Washington. It inexorably pulls power, taxes and laws to the center. It need not be but over three generations, we have seen the rise of the Federal government. Taxes and benefits, national regulations on behaviors both commercial and personal have moved to the center. In the years preceding the Great Depression, the thought of Federal taxes was almost non-existent. The marginal rate for almost every American was about 1.5%. We didnt have a social safety net, a massive military, not regulators in a meaningful way. There is a culture way, but it was lost long ago. The nation has chosen to largely subsume state rights in favor of a central government for good or bad. These court and election skirmishes wont change the playing field but are simply the cadaveric spasms.
4
really not too surprising that after centuries of Law and the evolution of Law we now are at the point of Presidential push back against Law. Law as if it is a suggestion for others. Law that is applied to all is now to be metered depending on the whims of the president and his Legislative enablers.
one thing that does not surprise in the least is the Judiciary is the Adult in the Room or World. This holds true for most countries.
8
"Law that is applied to all" includes immigration law. States and cities have no constitutional power to deal with immigration, only federal law applies.
What "sanctuary" cities and states are doing is hindering federal immigration law from being applied to all illegal immigrants.
6
frugalfish, they are not hindering. They are simply not doing the job of the federal government for them.
"States and cities have no constitutional power to deal with immigration, only federal law applies."
Absolutely. And that is exactly what CA and its cities are saying - we do not and should not deal with immigration law. Local law enforcement is concerned about local crime, and if someone is _convicted_ of a crime, then immigration is notified. It really is quite simple.
Largely populated states are underrepresented in the house and deliberate attempts to remove their representation in the electoral college is going to eventually lead to rebellion. These states send far more money to our federal government than the benefits they receive in return so they don't deserve nor should they stand by while the GOP tax plan deliberately targets their citizens. This is a war that the GOP very well may regret starting.
As for our immigration policies, the federal government not the states are responsible for policing our borders. The states are not obligated to help as long as they do nothing to interfere with immigration policies. President Obama managed this issue just fine while he was in office without any push back from the states. Local law enforcement needs the trust of the communities they police or they're not going to be able to keep the peace. Migration has always been more fluid along the border states despite the current rhetoric from our dear leader.
185
Two of the 3 last presidents received fewer votes than their challenger, thanks to the SCOTUS. In Bush's case they appointed him, in Trump's case the allowed voter suppression led to his victory.
128
This is a duplicate comment; please remove.
3
If Obama had managed immigration "just fine" Clinton would probably be president.