Young lays bare the unconstitutionality of the Trump administration's student deportation efforts — and issues a challenge to America. Also: More court pushback.
I find the care and moral stance - as well as legal of course - Judge Young took writing this decision incredibly moving and uplifting. How great a reminder that we have honorable folks working hard for our country and rule of law. And, big thanks to you, Chris, for this summary. As always.
Thank you. Knowledge really IS Power and you empowered me by sending this to me so I can post it to my social media and urge whoever reads it to post it to their social media. United, Americans are wonderful people who have unlimited talents to fight this administration. Thank you.
Outstanding! But Judge Young was wrong about one thing. It is true that "presidents have First Amendment rights." But it is not true that “there can be no constraint of any sort on the speech of the President of the United States, be that speech statesmanlike, magnanimous, and unifying or ‘foolish’ and ‘knavish.’ As President, he has the absolute and undoubted right to speak.”
This is a crucial point that all judges (and all lawyers and law professors and even all Americans) need to re-learn and learn to really respect. The starting point for a careful consideration of the powers of the president must begin with our Constitution's Preamble. It emphasized that "We the People" did "ordain and establish" our "Constitution" precisely to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves."
This is the heart and soul of our Constitution. It emphasizes a crucial, overarching principle that is only implicit in our Constitution's text and structure. As Justice James Wilson emphasized in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia, “the term SOVEREIGN” is not used in our “Constitution.” But the Preamble is the “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Only those “who ordained and established” our “Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States.”
Justice Wilson highlighted how the first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and all public servants: “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced.” After introducing the sovereign (the people), the text and structure of Articles I, II and III further emphasized the people’s sovereignty. They introduced our directly-elected representatives (Congress), then, our indirectly-elected representative (the president), and, last, our unelected representatives (judges). The people “vested” only limited powers in public servants in and under “Congress” (U.S. Const. Art. I, §1), the “President” (Art. II, §1) and the “supreme Court” and “inferior Courts” that “Congress” was delegated the power to “ordain and establish” (Art. III, §1).
After seeing the foregoing, then we can see the true significance of the oaths of office of our public servants. Article VI emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of every legislator and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) is "to support" our "Constitution" in everything they do. Article II more specifically emphasizes that the president's first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
The true significance of the oaths of office, the first sentences of Articles I, II and III (the people vesting limited powers in public servants) and the Preamble is clearly that no public servant--no legislator, no president, no judge, no DOJ attorney--was given any power to say whatever they want. Everything our public servants say must be to fulfill their oaths to support our Constitution.
Our Constitution's plain text shows Judge Young was right about the First Amendment obviously protecting even the speech of non-citizens. Even a comparison of Amendments I and II prove Judge Young is correct. The Second Amendment secured (and was expressly limited to) "the right of the people." In striking contrast, the First Amendment much more broadly secured "the freedom of speech, or of the press." It did not limit its protection to citizens or the People. In a similar manner, multiple provisions of our Constitution (e.g., the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) refer to "person" to emphasize that such provisions protect more than citizens or "the people."
I became a citizen over twenty years ago for two specific reasons: to vote; to do jury service. I have always believed that jury service is a "civic duty" that we should all be proud to participate in.
However, we should have a law that requires employers -- or the state -- to provide full pay for employees to do jury service with no cap on time. I'm fortunate, I could be on a jury for months and still do my job outside hours and take care of my home -- that is not true of a lot of people who are called up, and our system suffers because of that.
Quite a change: The lower courts speak truth … the highest deigns to disregard their findings of fact and law for undisclosed reasons.
Thank you and the Honorable William Young [ D. Mass.].
I find the care and moral stance - as well as legal of course - Judge Young took writing this decision incredibly moving and uplifting. How great a reminder that we have honorable folks working hard for our country and rule of law. And, big thanks to you, Chris, for this summary. As always.
Resisting begins to grow legs and a voice. Bravo! A grateful (thinking) nation salutes you, Judge Young.
Thank you. Knowledge really IS Power and you empowered me by sending this to me so I can post it to my social media and urge whoever reads it to post it to their social media. United, Americans are wonderful people who have unlimited talents to fight this administration. Thank you.
Outstanding! But Judge Young was wrong about one thing. It is true that "presidents have First Amendment rights." But it is not true that “there can be no constraint of any sort on the speech of the President of the United States, be that speech statesmanlike, magnanimous, and unifying or ‘foolish’ and ‘knavish.’ As President, he has the absolute and undoubted right to speak.”
This is a crucial point that all judges (and all lawyers and law professors and even all Americans) need to re-learn and learn to really respect. The starting point for a careful consideration of the powers of the president must begin with our Constitution's Preamble. It emphasized that "We the People" did "ordain and establish" our "Constitution" precisely to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves."
This is the heart and soul of our Constitution. It emphasizes a crucial, overarching principle that is only implicit in our Constitution's text and structure. As Justice James Wilson emphasized in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia, “the term SOVEREIGN” is not used in our “Constitution.” But the Preamble is the “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Only those “who ordained and established” our “Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States.”
Justice Wilson highlighted how the first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and all public servants: “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced.” After introducing the sovereign (the people), the text and structure of Articles I, II and III further emphasized the people’s sovereignty. They introduced our directly-elected representatives (Congress), then, our indirectly-elected representative (the president), and, last, our unelected representatives (judges). The people “vested” only limited powers in public servants in and under “Congress” (U.S. Const. Art. I, §1), the “President” (Art. II, §1) and the “supreme Court” and “inferior Courts” that “Congress” was delegated the power to “ordain and establish” (Art. III, §1).
After seeing the foregoing, then we can see the true significance of the oaths of office of our public servants. Article VI emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of every legislator and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) is "to support" our "Constitution" in everything they do. Article II more specifically emphasizes that the president's first, foremost and constant duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" his "Ability."
The true significance of the oaths of office, the first sentences of Articles I, II and III (the people vesting limited powers in public servants) and the Preamble is clearly that no public servant--no legislator, no president, no judge, no DOJ attorney--was given any power to say whatever they want. Everything our public servants say must be to fulfill their oaths to support our Constitution.
Our Constitution's plain text shows Judge Young was right about the First Amendment obviously protecting even the speech of non-citizens. Even a comparison of Amendments I and II prove Judge Young is correct. The Second Amendment secured (and was expressly limited to) "the right of the people." In striking contrast, the First Amendment much more broadly secured "the freedom of speech, or of the press." It did not limit its protection to citizens or the People. In a similar manner, multiple provisions of our Constitution (e.g., the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) refer to "person" to emphasize that such provisions protect more than citizens or "the people."
Thank you.
I became a citizen over twenty years ago for two specific reasons: to vote; to do jury service. I have always believed that jury service is a "civic duty" that we should all be proud to participate in.
However, we should have a law that requires employers -- or the state -- to provide full pay for employees to do jury service with no cap on time. I'm fortunate, I could be on a jury for months and still do my job outside hours and take care of my home -- that is not true of a lot of people who are called up, and our system suffers because of that.
Thank you, Judge Young! You are a true patriot and a credit to your profession.
Perhaps the conferences the justices are in this week make Robert’s comments about the rule of law declining is but one factor.
Humphrey’s Executor may look like Thomas’ precedent but in fact it’s laid bare in the constitution. If I’m wrong please correct me.
Thanks Chris!!
Thank you for your brilliant commentary and analysis.