Several senior members of the Trump administration have been escaping restrictions on their inability to move by clever ignorance games of pure ignorance under the constitution and a series of adverse court rulings.
Then there is Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose ignorance seems to be completely real.
Senator Maggie Hassan appeared at a Senate hearing this morning, "What is habeas protection?" Noem's hearing preparation apparently did not anticipate any questions about the Latin clause, replies: "habeas protection is the constitutional right of the president to be able to evacuate people in this country and suspend their rights-"
At this point, Hassan interjects and explains that the habeas protection industry is actually “a legal principle that requires the government to provide public reasons for detaining and imprisoning people.” In other words, this is contrary to what Noum said. This is not the right owned by the president, but the right owned by the people over the president.
Personal protection is one extremely Basic rights, for obvious reasons, if the government can simply put anyone in prison without proving that he is sentenced to defense in court, then its power is absolute. It goes back to the Magna Carta and is one of the few rights included by the founders in the original constitution without waiting to be added to the Bill of Rights. Noem is the head of the department with a budget of more than $100 billion per year, with more than 2.5 million employees, and critics warn that the vast domestic law enforcement power it has created has the potential of a dystopian police state - a concept that would ideally be familiar with.
The second Trump era has produced two post-liberal spokespersons. The first category is lawyers and other theorists who set out to reimagine the second Trump presidency after Donald Trump’s first term, which would ruthlessly deploy the power of the state to intimidate the opposition. The category is represented by figures such as Russell Vourch, Director of Management Office and Budget and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
Earlier this month, Miller appeared outside the White House and answered a question about personal protection,,,,, The reporter provided a confident explanation for the far-right website Gateway Pundit: "Well, the constitution is clear, of course, this is the Supreme Court of Land, which can suspend the privilege of habeas orders during the invasion period."
The government attempts to use its wartime capabilities to enter the kind of unlimited authority that the founder directly shut down. Miller’s logic is that the existence of foreign-born gang members equals an “invasion”, thus allowing the president to hire the Emergency Wartime Administration, which requires a moratorium on habeas protection in Miller’s account.
Miller's reasoning contains obvious factual and legal flaws. The existence of foreign gang members involves little invasion, and the Constitution does not actually give the president the power to unilaterally suspend habeas protection. Abraham Lincoln famously suspended rights during the Civil War, but this was widely regarded as an unconstitutional act rather than a proof of concept. (“Scholars and the Court overwhelmingly approved the position that despite Lincoln’s unilateral moratorium, despite the Constitution giving Congress exclusive powers to decide when the predicate specified in the suspension clause satisfies when the suspension clause is satisfied,” Amy Coney Barrett (Amy Coney Barrett history, then the people have no right to function at all.
Neum did not show a strong grasp of Miller's quasi-legal principles and could repeat this in her testimony. She seems to belong to the smaller Trump post-liberal: those who think Trump has unlimited rights in justice.
This category includes Trump himself. The president often likens his power to a king. "The people who save their country will not violate any law," he tweeted, and when asked whether the constitution needs to be followed, he replied, "I don't know." Although Trump has clearly accepted the legal defense of expanding power, he has never been able to repeat them coherently. Perhaps his greatest effort was to say in his first semester: "I have a second right, I have to do whatever I want to do here." This is close, because the second does enumerate the power of the president. In a sense, these forces are enumerated.
Norm seems to agree with Trump's reading of the Constitution. The lack of pseudo-legal reasoning familiar with Miller's style did not prevent her from executing the government's agenda. She swept the immigrants, transported them to the El Salvador giants and took photos in a sinister way in front of their cells. According to the Cato Institute, dozens of them never even violated U.S. immigration laws, which is just a detail.
After Hassan defined her habeas operation, Noem recovered enough to declare “I support the habeas protection class” as if it were a slogan of Congress or aspirations. She then immediately added by: “I also recognize that the President of the United States has powers under the Constitution to decide whether it should be suspended.”
If the president has the right to suspend habeas quarantine, it would not be a right. That's how rights work. Generations of Americans fear that freedom will perish under the thumb of a ruthless leader who is ruthless or undermining constitutional rights. It turns out that leaders who never know them are facing equal threats.