Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLaurence Tribe: Trump's Policy on New York's 'Trusted Travelers' Is Unconstitutional
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/opinion/trusted-travelers-new-york.html
People should never be punished for things they havent done.
By Laurence H. Tribe
Mr. Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
Feb. 14, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
The Department of Homeland Security recently decided to bar New York residents from federal programs that allow trusted travelers expedited transit through airports and border checkpoints. The Trump administration is defending the decision as a rational response to New Yorks enactment of a law denying federal immigration authorities free access to the states motor vehicle records. In truth, the departments decision is spiteful retaliation against people who reside in a state that declines to bend to the administrations immigration priorities. Whatever its other virtues or vices, the decision offends constitutional norms that are neither liberal nor conservative but simply American.
New York wasted no time in filing a federal suit to block the Department of Homeland Securitys move. The states lawsuit raises a number of plausible process-based objections and seeks to take advantage of legal doctrines usually associated with right-leaning judges. But it misses an opportunity to frame the case more fundamentally, in terms of principles grounded in personal responsibility and a refusal to punish people for the sins of others.
New York argues that the departments move was hasty and arbitrary and imposes unjustified and even irrational pressure on the state to cooperate with federal authorities by sharing data they say they need to protect the nation while facilitating travel. The states arguments have some force, but their premises might have limited appeal to judges deferential to executive power in matters involving immigration and allegedly implicating national security. Moreover, federal courts across the ideological spectrum might well sympathize with the administrations claim that it cannot safely administer the expedited transit programs without access to personal information uniquely available through state motor vehicle records.
The state might fare better with its federalism-based arguments: It objects to the use of national power to influence state lawmaking. Here, New York is armed with the Supreme Courts 2018 opinion in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, which invalidated a federal law flatly prohibiting states from legalizing sports gambling. The court in that case held the federal law to be a forbidden form of federal commandeering of state legislative power.
</snip>
People should never be punished for things they havent done.
By Laurence H. Tribe
Mr. Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
Feb. 14, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
The Department of Homeland Security recently decided to bar New York residents from federal programs that allow trusted travelers expedited transit through airports and border checkpoints. The Trump administration is defending the decision as a rational response to New Yorks enactment of a law denying federal immigration authorities free access to the states motor vehicle records. In truth, the departments decision is spiteful retaliation against people who reside in a state that declines to bend to the administrations immigration priorities. Whatever its other virtues or vices, the decision offends constitutional norms that are neither liberal nor conservative but simply American.
New York wasted no time in filing a federal suit to block the Department of Homeland Securitys move. The states lawsuit raises a number of plausible process-based objections and seeks to take advantage of legal doctrines usually associated with right-leaning judges. But it misses an opportunity to frame the case more fundamentally, in terms of principles grounded in personal responsibility and a refusal to punish people for the sins of others.
New York argues that the departments move was hasty and arbitrary and imposes unjustified and even irrational pressure on the state to cooperate with federal authorities by sharing data they say they need to protect the nation while facilitating travel. The states arguments have some force, but their premises might have limited appeal to judges deferential to executive power in matters involving immigration and allegedly implicating national security. Moreover, federal courts across the ideological spectrum might well sympathize with the administrations claim that it cannot safely administer the expedited transit programs without access to personal information uniquely available through state motor vehicle records.
The state might fare better with its federalism-based arguments: It objects to the use of national power to influence state lawmaking. Here, New York is armed with the Supreme Courts 2018 opinion in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, which invalidated a federal law flatly prohibiting states from legalizing sports gambling. The court in that case held the federal law to be a forbidden form of federal commandeering of state legislative power.
</snip>
...especially when dangled in an illegal quid pro quo.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 728 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laurence Tribe: Trump's Policy on New York's 'Trusted Travelers' Is Unconstitutional (Original Post)
Dennis Donovan
Feb 2020
OP
in2herbs
(2,944 posts)1. Thank you for your exhausting work to keep our democracy Laurence Tribe. nt
Baitball Blogger
(46,684 posts)2. Trump's mistake was to single out a state.
'Cuz I know some of us feel like we're still on a list, even though we pay the fee.
LiberalFighter
(50,795 posts)3. To bad New York can't act like a country
and confiscate properties belonging to the Trump family.