Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Shrillland]

Increase wages to reasonable levels for a start, but we won't be able to do that without bringing organised labour back from the grave in a new form, one that knows how to navigate the new technology-based gig economy as well as standard traditional employment.

So long term goal rather then something to do immediately, and not one that will happen under the current administration.

Sometimes, there are no short-term answers.

[Thermodolia]

If it means the workers are treated fairly yes

SO what will you do with the fact that there are people who cannot afford food right now, let alone when the prices go up? If you want to solve the problem, be sure that the issue you are making is not just as bad if not worse. Or at least try and solve or at least blunt the problems that you are going to make.

Increase support to those who need food assistance.

[Thermodolia]

That takes care of you. What about the rest of the country?

For me, fair treatment of workers isn't the same as expulsion of immigrants, legal or illegal. Fair treatment means that I would gladly pay higher prices, expelling people means I wouldn't. These are separate humanitarian issues.

Same with me.

[Petrasylvania]

SO what will you do with the fact that there are people who cannot afford food right now, let alone when the prices go up? If you want to solve the problem, be sure that the issue you are making is not just as bad if not worse. Or at least try and solve or at least blunt the problems that you are going to make.

Increase support to those who need food assistance.

Long term plan which won't happen with the current administration.

[Petrasylvania]

For me, fair treatment of workers isn't the same as expulsion of immigrants, legal or illegal. Fair treatment means that I would gladly pay higher prices, expelling people means I wouldn't. These are separate humanitarian issues.

Same with me.

Now can you get the rest of the country to do the same?

[Thermodolia]

Increase support to those who need food assistance.

Long term plan which won't happen with the current administration.

I’m not talking about the current administration though. I’m just saying that forcing the companies that have migrant workers to treat them fairly. Even if that means I would have to threaten those companies with Nationalization and arrests.

[Thermodolia]

Same with me.

Now can you get the rest of the country to do the same?

With some work yes. Fair treatment helps all.

[Petrasylvania]

Long term plan which won't happen with the current administration.

I’m not talking about the current administration though. I’m just saying that forcing the companies that have migrant workers to treat them fairly. Even if that means I would have to threaten those companies with Nationalization and arrests.

That's communism!

[Thermodolia]

I’m not talking about the current administration though. I’m just saying that forcing the companies that have migrant workers to treat them fairly. Even if that means I would have to threaten those companies with Nationalization and arrests.

That's communism!

So? Are you expecting me to change me answer?

You do realize that I told you I’m an anti-capitalist right? I’m a socialist. And for the record what I’m proposing isn’t anywhere near communism not by a long shot

[Liriena]

Honestly, I'm less concerned by the fact that he's promising his base that he's gonna do something illegal, than I am about the fact that it's a cruel ploy that would lead to at least thousands of stateless innocent children who rabid smooth-brained cunts like him could freely terrorize and abuse.

Guillotines when?

Yeah, removing jus soli or at least adding restrictions to it is clearly worthy of being beheaded./s

Robespierre did nothing wrong.

[Caracasus]

Agrigulture remains a very low paid and very dangerous profession, so it is hardly surprising that immigrants supply much of the workforce. Framing a tougher policy on immigration as a way of protecting people from low wages/exploitation doesn't make a great deal of sense though. If anything, a more hostile environment enables employers to exploit illegal immigrants even more than they already do.

I guess you could wait and see if the administration cracks down on employers, but they really won't, certainly not on the largest of employers anyway. The answer to combatting low wages and bad conditions is the same it's always been. Unionization and solidarity. In today's more interconnected world that would also likely mean solidarity across the supply chain.

[Vassenor]

I feel like we've drifted from the actual thread topic somewhat.

[Kubra]

Agrigulture remains a very low paid and very dangerous profession, so it is hardly surprising that immigrants supply much of the workforce. Framing a tougher policy on immigration as a way of protecting people from low wages/exploitation doesn't make a great deal of sense though. If anything, a more hostile environment enables employers to exploit illegal immigrants even more than they already do.

I guess you could wait and see if the administration cracks down on employers, but they really won't, certainly not on the largest of employers anyway. The answer to combatting low wages and bad conditions is the same it's always been. Unionization and solidarity. In today's more interconnected world that would also likely mean solidarity across the supply chain.

I mean, it's telling that for a lot of history folks had to be forced to work the land.
Agricultural work is really shit.

[Kaggeceria]

Agrigulture remains a very low paid and very dangerous profession, so it is hardly surprising that immigrants supply much of the workforce. Framing a tougher policy on immigration as a way of protecting people from low wages/exploitation doesn't make a great deal of sense though. If anything, a more hostile environment enables employers to exploit illegal immigrants even more than they already do.

I guess you could wait and see if the administration cracks down on employers, but they really won't, certainly not on the largest of employers anyway. The answer to combatting low wages and bad conditions is the same it's always been. Unionization and solidarity. In today's more interconnected world that would also likely mean solidarity across the supply chain.

I mean, it's telling that for a lot of history folks had to be forced to work the land.
Agricultural work is really shit.

People were forced to do so because it was cheaper than paying workers. This is roughly the same reason agricultural companies hire illegal laborers to pay sweatshop wages.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I feel like we've drifted from the actual thread topic somewhat.

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I feel like we've drifted from the actual thread topic somewhat.

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

I wouldn't be so sure. It wouldn't be the first time the courts have interpreted part of the constitution to be the exact opposite of what it says.

[Vassenor]

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

I wouldn't be so sure. It wouldn't be the first time the courts have interpreted part of the constitution to be the exact opposite of what it says.

Not sure you can reasonably interpret the 14th that way.

But if you're fine setting up that precedent to get rid of the 2nd...

[Kubra]

I mean, it's telling that for a lot of history folks had to be forced to work the land.
Agricultural work is really shit.

People were forced to do so because it was cheaper than paying workers. This is roughly the same reason agricultural companies hire illegal laborers to pay sweatshop wages.

Idk, after serfdom and the rockier bits of industrialisation, city living seemed to take off.
I mean, ain't it nice here with the buses and the coffee shops and the burger kings?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I wouldn't be so sure. It wouldn't be the first time the courts have interpreted part of the constitution to be the exact opposite of what it says.

Not sure you can reasonably interpret the 14th that way.

But if you're fine setting up that precedent to get rid of the 2nd...

The precedent is already there with Interstate Commerce. It's fucking comical how much the courts have butchered that.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

I wouldn't be so sure. It wouldn't be the first time the courts have interpreted part of the constitution to be the exact opposite of what it says.

I wouldn't put money on it going any further once the midterms are over.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not sure you can reasonably interpret the 14th that way.

But if you're fine setting up that precedent to get rid of the 2nd...

The precedent is already there with Interstate Commerce. It's fucking comical how much the courts have butchered that.

Do you have any other examples? Because while it is a broad interpretation, it isn’t the exact opposite of what the article says.

Edit: especially if you see the Commerce Clause together with the Necessary and Proper Clause. It seems like the system itself might be very open to interpretation. Especially the term ‘among the several States’ is very broad and open to interpretation. The 14th amendment does not have that.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The precedent is already there with Interstate Commerce. It's fucking comical how much the courts have butchered that.

Do you have any other examples? Because while it is a broad interpretation, it isn’t the exact opposite of what the article says.

It absolutely is the exact opposite of what it says. The Commerce Clause says Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Despite being aged a bit you don't need an old dictionary to properly understand this one. Congress can handle commerce with foreign nations ie trade, commerce between the states to ensure there's no interstate trade wars ie Texas trying to fuck over Oklahoma and trade with the natives because at the time they were still independent.

This has been stretched so hilariously far by the courts over the past 80 years that even if I go mine a bunch of metal myself that I then bring home to use on my homemade machinery to make a homemade product it is still placed under federal jurisdiction because the courts have decided that my decidedly not interstate actions are actually interstate commerce. It's mind boggling and the series of cases on the topic have given Congress near unlimited power where they were not supposed to have it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Do you have any other examples? Because while it is a broad interpretation, it isn’t the exact opposite of what the article says.

It absolutely is the exact opposite of what it says. The Commerce Clause says Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Despite being aged a bit you don't need an old dictionary to properly understand this one. Congress can handle commerce with foreign nations ie trade, commerce between the states to ensure there's no interstate trade wars ie Texas trying to fuck over Oklahoma and trade with the natives because at the time they were still independent.

This has been stretched so hilariously far by the courts over the past 80 years that even if I go mine a bunch of metal myself that I then bring home to use on my homemade machinery to make a homemade product it is still placed under federal jurisdiction because the courts have decided that my decidedly not interstate actions are actually interstate commerce. It's mind boggling and the series of cases on the topic have given Congress near unlimited power where they were not supposed to have it.

You assume that the term ‘among the several states’ means ‘interstate commerce’ and that it excludes intrastate commerce, which is not something you can just assume from those terms. The term ‘among’ is just very broad in itself. If we look at article III section 2:

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Interesting here is the term ‘between’. Here, they use the term ‘between’ to indicate that it is exclusively between States. The fact that they used the term ‘among’ instead of ‘between’ means that it isn’t so simple. This is the kind of legal interpretation that can be used to interpret legislation. While I agree that it is quite a broad interpretation, it isn’t entirely easy and without merit, and it should not be treated as some kind of insane interpretation.

Besides, it really is not the opposite. The opposite of the article would be that the US federal government does not have the jurisdiction to regulate commerce. It doesn’t go exactly against the meaning, it just broadens it.

[Ifreann]

I feel like we've drifted from the actual thread topic somewhat.

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

It's worked well for him before.

[Page]

I feel like we've drifted from the actual thread topic somewhat.

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

It's important to distinguish what you hope for from what could happen. I certainly don't want the sociopath in the Oval Office to succeed in stripping citizenship from Americans, and I don't want the Supreme Court to let him, but it's possible. In this era we're in, the authoritarian right is rising to power and democracy is being suffocated. The rich and powerful wield more influence over elections than ever before, the odds of reclaiming the legislature are stacked against us due to voter suppression and gerrymandering, and far right demagoguery succeeds in manipulating voters.

I don't think it's entirely hopeless, but these are dark times.