I see the 2026 midterms shaping up on two key issues: affordability for everyday life for the non-wealthy and the preservation of democracy. Historian John Meacham put his finger on it: the Declaration of Independence, which states that a government should help its citizens pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and to do so, needs to be free from a tyrannical "king". Credit Rep. Zohran Mamdani, who just won the Democratic party nomination primary for New York mayor, for coining a winning campaign word: affordability. He hit a nerve, and it's his use of it that bested an old generation of pols. Like him or not, he gave those searching for better messaging the winning one word for the 2026 and 2028 election cycles.
In truth, both the issue of affordability and the protection of democracy are related. Dissent, protest, and freedom of speech are needed for people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness when government overreaches or ignores their pain.. That is the tie that binds both freedom and the affordability of living for all, not just for the privileged few or those of a certain race or religion or who swear loyalty to a king. That is the reason we declared independence from a tyrannical king, and the document of the Declaration of Independence remains the best stand-alone reason why democracy should be upheld instead of the dictatorship of one or a few, whether you call it a king, a strongman, or an autocracy.
The abject failure of Trump to live up to his promise to make life more affordable is a fact of life happening before our very eyes. Protecting democracy as we have known it is more than just an anti-Trump, anti-Trumpism attack campaign strategy; it is a positive sales message on how, going forward, it is an advantage for people themselves to have the freedom, to complain, and to vote in free and fair elections for representative who prioritize their constituents interests. fear from threats of fear or favor..
The near absolute power is being handed step by step to an American president, freed from the fear of being prosecuted for committing a crime, and now given the ability to ignore lower federal court decisions in the ruling handed down today in birthright citizenship. It is one more gift by the Supreme Court to emasculate the power of the two branches of government, the judicial and legislative branches, designed to check and balance each other and the executive, to bridle government abuse of power, and muzzle the inalienable rights of its citizens using the tools of fear and favor. The branch to which the extra power is given is already an administration dedicated to the unitary ability of one branch, the executive branch, which holds the reins of power without challenge, thereby becoming the enabler of an autocracy.
Immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, CASA, an immigration rights organization, filed a class action suit that should force the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment to uphold birthright citizenship. However, individuals affected still have the ability, if they have the money or help, to sue, and also groups of those affected can also sue in class action suits, as CASA just did. That this is retroactive appears not to be the situation, and the Supreme Court case concerns children born in the US after February 19, 2025, when Trump signed the blatantly unconstitutional executive order. It is possible that the Trump regime could block a class action suit reaching the Supreme Court through a legal maneuver.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-birthright-citizenship-mean/ "Friday’s ruling addressed three lawsuits that were filed against Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or certain noncitizens on temporary visas. The judges in those lawsuits granted nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, arguing that it violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Nationwide injunctions have been granted against Republican and Democratic policies alike. But SCOTUS ruled that, in most cases, district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block federal policies. They can only grant relief to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. This could mean that courts would be forced to allow harmful or unconstitutional policies to take effect in some places or against some individuals while being blocked in others—creating a chaotic and confusing patchwork of rules."
From an AI inquiry on Google about the CASA class action suit filed June 27:
- "CASA and other groups, who had previously obtained a nationwide injunction against the order, are now seeking class-action relief to protect the rights of a broader group of individuals affected by the order, specifically those who have had or will have children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025.
- The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship, arguing it conflicts with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the U.S.
- The lawsuit aims to ensure that the rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants are protected and that the executive order does not create a patchwork of conflicting rules regarding birthright citizenship across the country.
Declaration of Independence: A Transcription | National Archivesn n
No comments:
Post a Comment