You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect.
If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.
1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected.
2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution?
The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosses the line into rioting or obstructing government operations.
The Fourth has allowed for brief questioning, reasonable suspicion, and the recent Vasquez Perdomo emergency order held that these recent stops are constitutional - so even your “checks and balances” idea is working against you, as multiple branches of government are in concurrence here.
The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.
On “what actions violate the Constitution”: you’re also overstating what’s been “held.” An emergency order/stay is not a merits ruling that a policy is constitutional; it’s often just “this can proceed for now while litigation continues.” And the fact that multiple branches haven’t stopped something yet doesn’t mean checks and balances are “working”, it can just mean they’re failing in slow motion, which is exactly the scenario the founders warned about.
As for the specific amendments: time/place/manner doesn’t cover suppressing disfavored speech under pretext, and reasonable suspicion can’t be race/ethnicity-by-proxy or broad dragnet logic. If you want to argue the recent ICE-related tactics are clearly constitutional, cite the exact language you’re relying on and I’ll read it. But “emergency order exists” does not equal “constitutional on the merits.”
On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful.
But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised:
Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained.
Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory.
So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions.
If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?
You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect.
If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.
1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected.
2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution?
The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosses the line into rioting or obstructing government operations.
The Fourth has allowed for brief questioning, reasonable suspicion, and the recent Vasquez Perdomo emergency order held that these recent stops are constitutional - so even your “checks and balances” idea is working against you, as multiple branches of government are in concurrence here.
The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.
On “what actions violate the Constitution”: you’re also overstating what’s been “held.” An emergency order/stay is not a merits ruling that a policy is constitutional; it’s often just “this can proceed for now while litigation continues.” And the fact that multiple branches haven’t stopped something yet doesn’t mean checks and balances are “working”, it can just mean they’re failing in slow motion, which is exactly the scenario the founders warned about.
As for the specific amendments: time/place/manner doesn’t cover suppressing disfavored speech under pretext, and reasonable suspicion can’t be race/ethnicity-by-proxy or broad dragnet logic. If you want to argue the recent ICE-related tactics are clearly constitutional, cite the exact language you’re relying on and I’ll read it. But “emergency order exists” does not equal “constitutional on the merits.”
5 replies →
On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
On the third hand, when those people getting detained are reasonably suspected of violating 18 USC 111, it’s perfectly fine.
If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful.
But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised:
Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained.
Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory.
So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions.
If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?