Ex-Trump chief of staff Kelly says second term would be ‘nonstop gunfight’

[mystery-ak]

 Ex-Trump chief of staff Kelly says second term would be ‘nonstop gunfight’
by Lauren Sforza - 07/17/23 4:11 PM ET

Former President Trump’s chief of staff John Kelly said a second term for the ex-president would result in a “nonstop gunfight” with Congress.

Kelly was Trump’s second chief of staff and came into the job hoping to instill discipline on the White House. He ended up lasting in the role for nearly a year and a half but had little success in ending the drama and infighting that characterized Trump’s administration.

“It would be chaotic,” Kelly said of what a second term might look like in a New York Times piece.

“It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”

Since Trump left office, Kelly has offered sharp criticism of the former president, including reportedly saying Trump was the “most flawed person” he has ever met.

“The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it’s more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life,” Kelly told friends, according to a report by CNN in 2020.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4102033-ex-trump-chief-of-staff-kelly-says-second-term-would-be-nonstop-gunfight/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I trust Kelly on this one.  It matches what I've seen with my own eyes, and Kelly is a straight shooter without much ego.

[massadvj]

“It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”

Would he simply ignore the Congress and the courts? For any other candidate, the answer would be no. But for Trump? Who knows? His supporters would certainly want him to take a torch to everything and ask questions later. I'd like to see it done within the framework of the founders. I guess I am old fashioned that way.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He's already announced stuff, like unilaterally ending birthright citizenship on day 1 via executive order, for which he doesn't have the legal authority.  So Kelly's prediction seems a pretty safe bet.

[Bigun]

He's already announced stuff, like unilaterally ending birthright citizenship on day 1 via executive order, for which he doesn't have the legal authority. So Kelly's prediction seems a pretty safe bet.

Tell me why (you think) he doesn't have that authority @Maj. Bill Martin since this entire birthright citizenship is 20th century made up BS to begin with!

[ScottinVA]

Tell me why (you think) he doesn't have that authority @Maj. Bill Martin since this entire birthright citizenship is 20th century made up BS to begin with!

The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.  It was further codified by the 1965 Immigration Act.  It'd take more than Trump to repeal birthright citizenship.

[Bigun]

The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.  It was further codified by the 1965 Immigration Act.  It'd take more than Trump to repeal birthright citizenship.

NO! The 14th amendment did no such thing! It granted citizenship to those born in the country and subject to the sole and complete jurisdiction thereof. Which excluded the children of any and all foreign nationals.

[Kamaji]

The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.  It was further codified by the 1965 Immigration Act.  It'd take more than Trump to repeal birthright citizenship.

Exactly.

[DefiantMassRINO]

A 2nd Trump presidency would be absolute bedlam.

The Federalist Society will be cheering him on as he consolidates power in the Executive.

The Founders favored giving powers to the Legislative Branch, as representatives of the people and the States, not to the Executive Branch.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.  It was further codified by the 1965 Immigration Act.  It'd take more than Trump to repeal birthright citizenship.

I think it is a bit more complicated than that, but ultimately, you're right.

First, I don't think it is certain that the 14th Amendment was originally intended to apply to the children of illegal immigrants, and the Supreme Court has never addressed that question squarely.  People cite to Wong Kim Ark in support of that, but the parents in that case were Chinese citizens who were here legally, so any really broad language that you'd try to apply to the children of people here illegally would be non-binding dicta.  So maybe there is an argument there, although I think that decision being much closer in time to the passage of the 14th is pretty good evidence as to how it was understood originally.

However, I think the Immigration Act of 1965 closes the door on fixing that with an Executive Order, because as we all know, an Executive Order can't override an actual law.  The Immigration Act of 1965 does use the exact "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language as the 14th Amendment, so you could try to argue that it is equally ambiguous and therefore doesn't necessarily bar an executive order.

The problem I see with that argument is that there was nearly 100 years of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause being interpreted to apply to the children of illegal immigrants, and Congress certainly would have known that when drafting, debating, and passing the 1965 Immigration Act.  So, when Congress passed the 1965 Immigration Act, they were pretty clearly ratifying the broader language of Wong Kim Ark that applied birthright citizens to everyone except diplomats, etc.. 

In other words, even if the original understanding of the 14th Amendment didn't cover the children of illegal immigrants, the original understanding of the Immigration Act of 1965 did.  And Trump can't override that law with an Executive Order. 

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Supreme Court would say if it made it up to them, which I don't think it would.  So if you really want to challenge in the courts birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, you'd need to get Congress to pass that law.  Otherwise, the courts would never even reach the Constitutional issue, and would just cite to the 1965 Immigration Act.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A 2nd Trump presidency would be absolute bedlam.

The Federalist Society will be cheering him on as he consolidates power in the Executive.

The Founders favored giving powers to the Legislative Branch, as representatives of the people and the States, not to the Executive Branch.

As a member of the Federalist Society, I don't think that is correct.  What is correct is that the idea of the Unitary Executive is probably stronger (though not nearly unanimous) among the tens of thousands of members than it is among lawyers at large.  That idea means that whatever power the Executive Branch has ultimately belongs to the President, and isn't "independent".  But that is very much different from believing that the Executive Branch should have legislative or judicial power.  In fact, most members I know (obviously just a small percentage) don't think the idea of Administrative Law judges -- who are part of the Executive Branch -- are even constitutional.  We think that power has to belong to Article 3 judges.

[Bigun]

I think it is a bit more complicated than that, but ultimately, you're right.

First, I don't think it is certain that the 14th Amendment was originally intended to apply to the children of illegal immigrants, and the Supreme Court has never addressed that question squarely.  People cite to Wong Kim Ark in support of that, but the parents in that case were Chinese citizens who were here legally, so any really broad language that you'd try to apply to the children of people here illegally would be non-binding dicta.  So maybe there is an argument there, although I think that decision being much closer in time to the passage of the 14th is pretty good evidence as to how it was understood originally.

However, I think the Immigration Act of 1965 closes the door on fixing that with an Executive Order, because as we all know, an Executive Order can't override an actual law.  The Immigration Act of 1965 does use the exact "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language as the 14th Amendment, so you could try to argue that it is equally ambiguous and therefore doesn't necessarily bar an executive order.

The problem I see with that argument is that there was nearly 100 years of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause being interpreted to apply to the children of illegal immigrants, and Congress certainly would have known that when drafting, debating, and passing the 1965 Immigration Act.  So, when Congress passed the 1965 Immigration Act, they were pretty clearly ratifying the broader language of Wong Kim Ark that applied birthright citizens to everyone except diplomats, etc.. 

In other words, even if the original understanding of the 14th Amendment didn't cover the children of illegal immigrants, the original understanding of the Immigration Act of 1965 did.  And Trump can't override that law with an Executive Order. 

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Supreme Court would say if it made it up to them, which I don't think it would.  So if you really want to challenge in the courts birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, you'd need to get Congress to pass that law.  Otherwise, the courts would never even reach the Constitutional issue, and would just cite to the 1965 Immigration Act.

If a law is based on an incorrect interpretation of the constitution would that law be constitutional?

[Bigun]

As a member of the Federalist Society, I don't think that is correct.  What is correct is that the idea of the Unitary Executive is probably stronger (though not nearly unanimous) among the tens of thousands of members than it is among lawyers at large.  That idea means that whatever power the Executive Branch has ultimately belongs to the President, and isn't "independent".  But that is very much different from believing that the Executive Branch should have legislative or judicial power.  In fact, most members I know (obviously just a small percentage) don't think the idea of Administrative Law judges -- who are part of the Executive Branch -- are even constitutional.  We think that power has to belong to Article 3 judges.

And I agree with that statement in full.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If a law is based on an incorrect interpretation of the constitution would that law be constitutional?

That phrasing could apply to a lot of different situations, some of which may be constitutional, and some which aren't.  But in this case, it would be constitutional because the Constitution expressly gave to Congress the power to set the rules for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship.  There is nothing about Congress choosing to give citizenship to children born here to parents of illegal immigrants that exceeds Congress' authority under the Constitution.

I personally don't like it.  I don't think someone should be granted citizenship just because their pregnant mom snuck across the border the night before and gave birth.  But I think it is a loser argument in the courts, and I think trying to do it via executive order is going to cause a firestorm without actually accomplishing anyway.

I know there are some lawyers who disagree with that, but all the arguments I've seen focus just on the language of the 14th itself, and kind of ignore the Immigration Act of 1965.  I just think that the combination of the 100+ years of consistently granting citizenship on the basis, plus Congress apparently ratifying that exact practice, is too much to overcome.  Might look different to the Court if Congress and the President were both aligned on the issue, though.

[Bigun]

That phrasing could apply to a lot of different situations, some of which may be constitutional, and some which aren't.  But in this case, it would be constitutional because the Constitution expressly gave to Congress the power to set the rules for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship.  There is nothing about Congress choosing to give citizenship to children born here to parents of illegal immigrants that exceeds Congress' authority under the Constitution.

I personally don't like it.  I don't think someone should be granted citizenship just because their pregnant mom snuck across the border the night before and gave birth.  But I think it is a loser argument in the courts, and I think trying to do it via executive order is going to cause a firestorm without actually accomplishing anyway.

Looking at the current landscape, I think a few firestorms are exactly what we need!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Looking at the current landscape, I think a few firestorms are exactly what we need!

I don't mind firestorms where we end up winning.  I think firestorms where we end up losing are a bad idea.

I think picking fights carefully is extremely important.  That's why I admire McConnell more than most.  He is the absolute master of going to the mat in political firestorms only when he thinks he can win.  He didn't do a lot of things conservatives wanted because he didn't think he had the votes, and that really pisses off some folks.

But damn if he didn't ram through the tax cuts -- which were the single biggest legislative achievement of Trump's Presidency, as well as stopping Garland, and confirming Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB.  And he did all of that with razor-thin margins.  All because he knows which big battles matter the most, and are winnable.

[Hoodat]

NO! The 14th amendment did no such thing! It granted citizenship to those born in the country and subject to the sole and complete jurisdiction thereof. Which excluded the children of any and all foreign nationals.

No, it excludes the children of foreign diplomats (i.e. those not subject to the sole and complete jurisdiction of the US).  People who enter the country, whether legally or illegally, are still subject to the complete jurisdiction of US laws.

[Bigun]

I don't mind firestorms where we end up winning.  I think firestorms where we end up losing are a bad idea.

I think picking fights carefully is extremely important.  That's why I admire McConnell more than most.  He is the absolute master of going to the mat in political firestorms only when he thinks he can win.  He didn't do a lot of things conservatives wanted because he didn't think he had the votes, and that really pisses off some folks.

But damn if he didn't ram through the tax cuts -- which were the single biggest legislative achievement of Trump's Presidency, as well as stopping Garland, and confirming Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB.  And he did all of that with razor-thin margins.  All because he knows which big battles matter the most, and are winnable.

How do we predetermine which we will win or lose?

I would think much more highly of McConnell if he would learn to stop actively working to undermine REPUBLICAN candidates for the senate. As it is, He is no better than those named in this: https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,505988.0.html

[Bigun]

No, it excludes the children of foreign diplomats (i.e. those not subject to the sole and complete jurisdiction of the US).  People who enter the country, whether legally or illegally, are still subject to the complete jurisdiction of US laws.

Not if they are also subject to the jurisdiction of ANY foreign power they aren't. This is made perfectly clear if you read the congressional debates.

[DefiantMassRINO]

I agree with Administrative Law Judges belonging to the Judical Branch.  Persons or matters before those Administrative Law Judges should be able to appeal to the Judiciary and the Legislative for redress of grievances.

The Founders did not intend Executive Powers to go unchecked by the other branches.

The rise of the Imperial Presidency via "rules", "regulations", and "Executive Orders" needs to be stopped.  Congress needs to re-assert its powers that have been delegated or relegated to the Executive and the Judicial.

The extremes on both sides do not realize that unchecked Executive Powers and Judicial Powers may be abused and misused in ways that were never intended nor envisioned.

As a member of the Federalist Society, I don't think that is correct.  What is correct is that the idea of the Unitary Executive is probably stronger (though not nearly unanimous) among the tens of thousands of members than it is among lawyers at large.  That idea means that whatever power the Executive Branch has ultimately belongs to the President, and isn't "independent".  But that is very much different from believing that the Executive Branch should have legislative or judicial power.  In fact, most members I know (obviously just a small percentage) don't think the idea of Administrative Law judges -- who are part of the Executive Branch -- are even constitutional.  We think that power has to belong to Article 3 judges.

[Kamaji]

No, it excludes the children of foreign diplomats (i.e. those not subject to the sole and complete jurisdiction of the US).  People who enter the country, whether legally or illegally, are still subject to the complete jurisdiction of US laws.

Exactly.  The difference is between someone who is here - legally or illegally - in their private personal capacity and someone who is here based on an accreditation from a foreign sovereign, either for the individual him/herself, or for a household member (e.g., children of an accredited diplomat have derivative accreditation).

The first sort are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether legally or illegally, for the simple reason that if they break one of our laws, they can be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished, including through imprisonment.  The second sort are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because if they break one of our laws, they cannot be punished under U.S. law without the consent of the sovereign who accredited them, and the U.S.' only unilateral remedy is expulsion.

Thus, if a person comes here illegally without accreditation by a recognized foreign sovereign, and while here becomes parent to a child born alive within the U.S., then that child becomes a U.S. citizen by virtue of its birth on U.S. soil under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Exactly.  The difference is between someone who is here - legally or illegally - in their private personal capacity and someone who is here based on an accreditation from a foreign sovereign, either for the individual him/herself, or for a household member (e.g., children of an accredited diplomat have derivative accreditation).

The first sort are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether legally or illegally, for the simple reason that if they break one of our laws, they can be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished, including through imprisonment.  The second sort are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because if they break one of our laws, they cannot be punished under U.S. law without the consent of the sovereign who accredited them, and the U.S.' only unilateral remedy is expulsion.

Thus, if a person comes here illegally without accreditation by a recognized foreign sovereign, and while here becomes parent to a child born alive within the U.S., then that child becomes a U.S. citizen by virtue of its birth on U.S. soil under the Fourteenth Amendment.

I agree that's the correct argument.

I think too many people get caught up in what they believe the Constitution should say or mean based upon what they believe makes the most sense policy-wise.  Truth is that sometimes there were ambiguities or parts that in retrospect, we wish had been worded differently.  But you've got to take it for what it actually says, not for what we wish it said. 

As far as I can tell, there weren't any federal restrictions on immigration until 1875.  Which means that at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, there was no such thing as being an illegal immigrant.  You could walk right into the country across the border without restriction.  That's why thinking the 14th limited citizenship only to the children of people who were here legally wouldn't even have been a thought.  Everyone was here legally.  You were born here, that's it, unless you were a diplomats' kid, etc..  So, the wording is really, really broad because nobody was thinking about excluding the children of people who were here illegally.

Might wish they'd have had a bit more foresight and worded it differently, but they didn't.

[Cyber Liberty]

We've wandered only a little bit from the Topic.  I think a 4 year gunfight would be glorious.  Unfortunately, we wont get it no matter who gets to be Preezy.

[Kamaji]

I agree that's the correct argument.

I think too many people get caught up in what they believe the Constitution should say or mean based upon what they believe makes the most sense policy-wise.  Truth is that sometimes there were ambiguities or parts that in retrospect, we wish had been worded differently.  But you've got to take it for what it actually says, not for what we wish it said. 

As far as I can tell, there weren't any federal restrictions on immigration until 1875.  Which means that at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, there was no such thing as being an illegal immigrant.  You could walk right into the country across the border without restriction.  That's why thinking the 14th limited citizenship only to the children of people who were here legally wouldn't even have been a thought.  Everyone was here legally.  You were born here, that's it, unless you were a diplomats' kid, etc..  So, the wording is really, really broad because nobody was thinking about excluding the children of people who were here illegally.

Might wish they'd have had a bit more foresight and worded it differently, but they didn't.

Exactly.  To my understanding, the first law restricting entry to the U.S. was the Page Act of 1875.  Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

Since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress in 1868, there would have been no generalized conception of legal versus illegal entry; only whether persons here were here in their personal capacity, or under an accredited capacity from another sovereign government.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Ex-Trump chief of staff Kelly says second term would be ‘nonstop gunfight’

   Heaven knows we could use a little 1776 right now.