Hunter Law

Christian. Libertarian Republican.

[Hunter Law @RealHunterLaw21]

The best and worst thing about every U.S. President's presidency, a thread. While many of these are personal opinions, I will try to be as objective as possible and will be extremely critical of Presidents I am generally a fan of (1/X):

[Andrew Fleischman @ASFleischman]

Alito's dissent gives the game away:

"This Court adopts a rule that even England abandoned"

Yeah. England changed the ancient common law rule by passing a law.

Not by asking their courts to rewrite history.

[Dan McLaughlin @baseballcrank]

Reminder: no opinion, not even that of Justice Thomas, actually makes a constitutional case that the children of illegal immigrants are not birthright citizens. Alito comes closest. But all the actual evidence cited is on the birth tourism question.

[Isaac Saul @Ike_Saul]

Justice Alito's obscene inconsistencies as a justice are so frustrating.

In the asylum case, Alito used much of his opinion to describe the “plain English” meaning of “arrives in,” arguing that when someone “arrives in” the United States, it means they are in the United States, not at a port of entry standing in Mexico. Therefore, the Trump administration did not have to grant asylum to migrants until they arrived in the United States, because that’s what the language said, and thus they could block them from entering to prevent asylum claims. I said I agreed with this rationale, because it makes sense on the plain text.

In the late-arriving mail-in ballot case, Alito made his plain English argument again, that the meaning of Election Day was just that: Election Day. Therefore, Alito concluded, elections should not go on for weeks or months. This felt like a stretch to me, but it was consistent with the asylum ruling.

So... what does Justice Alito think it means when the 14th Amendment says anyone “born or naturalized in” the United States is a citizen?

What is the “plain English meaning” of that phrase?

One might consider this answer to be a lay-up for such a staunch textualist. Yet, instead, Alito focuses on “careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” and argues that the “Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country," words that appear exactly nowhere in the 14th Amendment.

I mean, I don't know. I give these brilliant justices a lot of deference and rarely accuse them of motivated reasoning. But this is a bit much, no?

[Jonah Goldberg @JonahDispatch]

New Righties read the 14th amendment the way Old Lefties read the 2nd. “It can’t mean what is says because I really don’t want it to!”

[Robert Barnes @barnes_law]

People who cite "Monroe Doctrine" are -- like Trump, himself -- historically illiterate & have never even read the statement crafted by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to Congress that forms its foundation. Guess what it primarily opposed? Regime change by foreign invaders.

[TenthAmendmentCenter @TenthAmendment]

THE BIG LIE ABOUT Thomas Jefferson vs the Barbary pirates is a very common one.

Pres. Jefferson got approval from Congress multiple times before going on the offense against the Pasha of Tripoli - despite the fact that war had already been officially declared against the United States. There was ONE defensive naval battle in 1801, and because the US had yet to get approval from congress, the Captain of the USS Enterprise ordered the enemy ship disarmed, throwing its guns overboard, and then released the crew and the ship.

RECEIPTS: https://t.co/DTnYRlkLA7

James Madison - waited TWO FULL YEARS to request and get approval from Congress to go on the offense against Algiers. And even waited for approval from congress against the British who were actively waging war on the US

RECEIPTS: https://t.co/cJxldjcw1n

But you know this already don't you, John?

[TenthAmendmentCenter @TenthAmendment]

“The constitution is outdated” is the argument of the socialists. And MAGA.

But we repeat ourselves.

[Robert Barnes @barnes_law]

FYI: Monroe Doctrine OPPOSED intervening in foreign nations as it's author John Quincy Adams spoke: America "does not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy" and the entire premise of the doctrine was regime change tended to backfire anyway.

[Hunter Law @RealHunterLaw21]

(8/7): Forgot to mention that the Monroe Doctrine only allows intervention when Europe is trying to intervene in the Western Hemisphere, not whenever we want to impose our influence over the Western Hemisphere. Trump's invocation is rewriting of history.

[Hunter Law @RealHunterLaw21]

Thoughts on yesterday's invasion of Venezuela, a thread (1/7):

​It's very possible that the fact that this happened is a net positive. However, that doesn't change the fact that this act blatantly disregarded the Constitution.

[Hunter Law @RealHunterLaw21]

(7/7): Finally, I have doubts that this will be a net positive since wars of regime change have had an awful track record, both in the Middle East and Latin America. We get rid of Maduro, now what? Just because we stay there, doesn't mean no more dictators once we leave.

[Jacob Winograd @BiblicalAnarchy]

A nuclear war is over before you blink

These people are deeply unserious. It's a cult.

[Doug Stafford @dougstafford]

An alarming number of people on here also have no idea what the Monroe Doctrine is and is not. First, it doesn’t negate the idea that Congress declares and approves war.

Second, it was to keep Europe out of the Americas, not a blank check to do whatever the fuck we want.

Third, it absolutely doesn’t let us take over and run a country that was not attacking us.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

In the Constitution, the Founders vested war making power in Congress, not the Executive branch.

[Doug Stafford @dougstafford]

The number of lawyers who are on here stating that

- bombing and invading a country is not an act of war (it clearly is)
- it doesn’t need Congress because drugs are bad (it did)
- an arrest warrant is legally enforceable outside our borders (it isn’t)

This action doesn’t need to be this fucking hard - get an aumf from congress, if you want to do what was done for the last few months and today.

Congress loves war. They would likely fund it.

But then at least we would return to the people’s representatives deciding who we are at war with.

Maduro was illegitimate and a dictator. Probably true that Venezuela and Latin America are better off with him gone.

So have that debate and vote! What are you afraid of?