constitution

Trump admin denies core constitutional right to US veteran

President Donald Trump's administration is now allegedly preventing a U.S. citizen and veteran from meeting with their attorney, according to a new report.

ABC News reported Monday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not allowing attorneys representing clients who are being held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Whipple Building outside of Minneapolis. This apparently includes at least one U.S. citizen who also served in the Iraq War.

According to ABC, an unnamed "prominent local criminal defense attorney" verified that his client was a bystander witnessing an immigration enforcement operation near his home.

"They told me that because my client had not requested me by name, that I could not see him," the lawyer said. "I’ve been practicing law in Minnesota for almost 20 years, and I have never been denied access to a client."

Another attorney who withheld their name told ABC that the Whipple Building is unable to accommodate meetings between attorneys and their clients. They accused the Trump administration of denying their client a core Constitutional right that is afforded both citizens and non-citizens alike.

"One ICE agent said if we let you see your clients, we would have to let all the attorneys see their clients, and imagine the chaos," the attorney told ABC. "And I said to that person, yeah, you do have to let all the attorneys see their clients. You do have to accommodate that. That’s the Constitution. You chose to put them here. I didn't bring this guy here, you did."

Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, anyone who is "accused" of a crime not only has the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers in the jurisdiction where they were charged, to be able to confront witnesses, have the process for obtaining witnesses in their favor "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Attorney Robert Sicoli told ABC that there is "nothing in the Constitution that talks about accommodating the government."

"It is a violation of constitutional rights," said Sicoli, who said he was also prevented from meeting with a client detained by the federal government.

Click here to read ABC's report in full.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Conservative warns Trump replacing Constitution with 'law of the jungle'

President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration are now openly communicating that the only law they respect is that "might is right." One conservative is warning that Americans should take their words very seriously.

In a Monday article for anti-Trump conservative website The Bulwark, editor Jonathan V. Last pointed to a recent post by far-right social media influencer Matt Walsh justifying the recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Walsh referred to Maduro as a "s——little tinpot third world dictator" whose ouster was necessary because he was "harming our country" and "interfering with our national interests."

"'International law' is fake and gay. The only international law is that big and powerful countries get to do what they want," Walsh wrote on X. "It has been that way since the dawn of civilization. It will always be that way. And we are the most powerful country on the planet. It's about time that we start acting like it."

Last also observed that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller made a similar argument in an interview with CNN host Jake Tapper. When Tapper asked him about Trump not ruling out using the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark, Miller defended the president by arguing that powerful countries should be able to assert their authority by force if necessary.

"We live in a world, in the real world ... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power," Miller said. "These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time."

The Bulwark editor doubted if this worldview stopped at international law, and posited that the Trump administration likely viewed domestic laws as able to bent and broken to accommodate the wishes of the powerful. He opined that Trump is "seeking a return to an old international order which antedates the modern, rules-based era" in which global hegemons carve up the world into "spheres of influence where the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must."

"Tell me: Do you think it is impossible that Trump and his revanchists also seek to return America to an old order in which control of the military is control of the government?" He wrote. "He wants Russia and China’s foreign policy. Why would he not also want their domestic policies?"

"[T]he law says that federal agents cannot brutalize the citizenry. But the practical reality is that the federal agents outnumber and outgun local law enforcement. So they cannot be arrested for brutalizing the citizenry," he added. "The law of the jungle is already here."

Click here to read Last's full article for The Bulwark.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump's third term talk is a 'grave threat' to 'survival' of Constitution: ex-prosecutor

When President Donald Trump's MAGA allies — including "War Room" host Steve Bannon — call for him to serve a third term, establishment Republicans and right-wing media figures often dismiss it as mere trolling designed to "own the liberals."

But former New York State prosecutor A. Scott Bolden, in an op-ed published by The Hill on November 5, stresses that talk of a third Trump term shouldn't be taken lightly — and if MAGA Republicans actually pursue it, the result could be a full-blown constitutional crisis in 2028.

"President Trump has often made contradictory statements about whether he will try to serve an unconstitutional third term," Bolden warns. "We shouldn't dismiss his threats as trolling or a joke. An attempt by Trump to stay in power illegally is a real possibility. It would pose a grave threat to the survival of our constitutional democracy."

The attorney continues, "Trump adviser Steve Bannon said, in a recent interview, that Trump is 'going to get a third term' and 'there is a plan' to achieve this, without specifying what the plan is. On his recent trip to Asia, the president refused to rule out the possibility of seeking an unconstitutional third term and said he would 'love to do it.' Then, a few days later, he said of the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms: 'If you read it, it's pretty clear. I'm not allowed to run. It's too bad.'"

The last U.S. president to service more than two terms was Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who was elected to a fourth term in 1944 and died in office in 1945 —causing Vice President Harry Truman to be sworn in as president. However, the 22nd Amendment was fully ratified in 1951, making FDR the last president to serve more than two terms in the White House.

Given all the "unconstitutional actions" Trump has taken during his second term, Bolden laments, there is no reason to believe that the 22nd Amendment would discourage him if he decided to pursue a third term in 2028.

"A key question is whether Trump could come up with an argument that would persuade at least five of the six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices to allow him to serve beyond the end of his term," Bolden explains. "The High Court has already given Trump expansive new powers that many constitutional scholars argue are not authorized by our nation's founding document. We shouldn't assume the Court won't do as Trump wishes once again, even if it violates the Constitution."

The attorney adds, "On the day nearly 7 million protesters recently turned out to demonstrate against his rule in No Kings rallies across the nation, Trump posted a disgusting AI-generated video on the social media site he owns. It showed him as a king wearing a golden crown, piloting a jet adorned with the words 'KING TRUMP,' dumping excrement on the protesters. We must not allow this to become a symbol of our new reality."

Attorney A. Scott Bolden's full op-ed for The Hill is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Enormously consequential': Key pillar of Constitution 'hinges on' this Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon be making a pivotal decision that will either severely hamper President Donald Trump's attempt to consolidate power — or exacerbate it.

That's according to a Thursday essay by The Atlantic's Paul Rosenzweig, who argued that there's a lot more at stake than Trump's tariffs in the V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump case to be heard this fall. He emphasized that depending on how the Court rules, it could "be the first substantive instance of the justices intervening to restrain him" or "be an enormously consequential decision, signaling the Court’s complete abdication of review authority."

"To say that the future of the constitutional system of checks and balances hinges on what the Court does is no exaggeration," Rosenzweig wrote.

The case stems from a lawsuit claiming that Trump doesn't have the power to unilaterally impose new import taxes on countries around the world simply by claiming an economic emergency. Trump invoked the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose the vast bulk of his tariffs earlier this year. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision last week that Trump tariffs under the IEEPA were unconstitutional.

Rosenzweig wrote that the four judges on the opposite side of that decision argued that Trump had the authority to impose the new trade duties, writing in their dissent: "Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries." He characterized the dissent as Trump having the ability to simply create an emergency out of thin air and assume new powers as a result.

"If that is the case, then the president’s control of the national economy by emergency declaration becomes near plenary. Economic claims are especially strong given the fungible nature of economic production," he wrote. "For example, in defending Trump’s tariffs before the federal circuit, the government attorneys went so far as to say that the only limit on the president’s emergency economic authority was that he had to find that the emergency had a source that was in substantial part outside the United States."

Currently, Congress alone has the power to decide tariffs, according to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. But if the Supreme Court sides with Trump this fall, those powers may be effectively stripped away for good.

Click here to read Rosenzweig's full essay in the Atlantic.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'C’mon man': Fox News analyst blasts Trump’s latest rant

Staten Island Live News reports Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume slamming President Donald Trump over his Monday executive order criminalizing people for burning the American flag.

“George HW Bush ran against flag burning in 1988 and spent a whole week campaigning on the issue. But he called for a constitutional amendment to ban the practice, Hume posted on X. “He didn’t pretend he could ban it by an executive order that flies in the face of constitutional speech protections. C’mon man.”

Trump’s order claims there is room to prosecute flag burning if it “is likely to incite imminent lawless action” or amounts to “fighting words.”

“You burn a flag, you get one year in jail. You don’t get 10 years, you don’t get one month,” Trump said. “You get one year in jail, and it goes on your record, and you will see flag burning stopping immediately.”

SI Live reports the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 In 1989 that the First Amendment protects flag burning as legitimate political expression. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon who Trump has repeatedly praised, voted along with the majority to protect that right.

Trump described the 1989 court behind the ruling as a “very sad court.”

Vice President JD Vance posted on X that Scalia “was a great Supreme Court Justice and a genuinely kind and decent person,” but argued that the “President's EO is consistent" with Texas v. Johnson while also arguing that “Texas v. Johnson was wrong and William Rehnquist was right.”

Social media personality Ed Krassenstein responded to Vance, posting on X: “The dude who called Trump ‘America’s Hitler’ before becoming his vice president is now supporting the infringement of our first amendment rights.” Krassenstein added that he was “going to burn a flag just for you JD.”

Read the Staten Island report at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Nobody believes you': Library of Congress blames missing Constitution sections on 'coding error'

Internet critics are not accepting the U.S. government’s reason for removing Section 9 and Section 10 from the Constitution Annotated website.

Archive searches earlier on Wednesday suggested the White House had scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 (pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful detention) from the official congressional website on the Constitution. The page for Section 10, on July 15 contained individual notes and entries on that section, including clauses. But on Aug. 6, a user visiting that same address could get only a portrait of George Washington and a: “Page Not Found” message, along with a link back to the homepage. The same went for the dedicated page for Section 9. Searches indicate the government site was modified July 17.

Missing text pertained to Habeas Corpus, including: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” and other information.

The site’s constitutional summaries of Section 9 and Section 10 on Aug. 6 were also missing and did not match the more thorough archived shots of the same page from May.

The Library of Congress responded on X later on Wednesday, blaming the deleted files on a software issue.

“It has been brought to our attention that some sections of Article 1 are missing from the Constitution Annotated … website. We’ve learned that this is due to a coding error. We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon,” the account posted.

But critics did not easily accept the answer.

“What code could have been changed to remove this specific section only of your website?” demanded one commenter responding to the post.

“Nobody believes you. Show the update history,” posted another.

White House officials have sparred with legislators over the question of Habeus corpus as embodied in the missing text. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed during a committee hearing that Habeas corpus is “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.”

“That’s incorrect,” corrected Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H), an attorney, who then explained to Noem that it is actually a “legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.”

Hassan further informed Noem that the constitutional provision is “the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”

The White House responded to AlterNet emails later Wednesday, calling inquiries “a question for Congress given it is a Congressional website,” but critics appear certain the White House had a role to play.

“We know it wasn't a coding error,” argued one commentator on X. “Someone probably did this in front of Trump to make him feel like he can change the Constitution.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Did Congress’ official Constitution site just delete references to parts of Article 1?

Archive searches suggest the White House has scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful detention from the official congressional website on the Constitution.

“Does this regime think that by editing the website they can delete these basic rights, or do they just want to make it harder to read about them?” demanded one commenter on Resistbot.

A quick scan of the site's constitutional summaries from Aug. 6 do not match more thorough archived shots of the same page from May. Among missing texts are summaries for Sections 9 and 10. Section 9 contains language pertaining to Habeas Corpus, including: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Section 10 outlines the rights (and limitations of rights) of states regarding organizing, particularly organizing against the federal government. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

In addition to missing summaries of these Constitutional sections are detailed pages on Section 9 and Section 10. The page for Section 10, on July 15, for example, contained individual notes and entries on that section, including clauses. Today, a user visiting that same address will get a portrait of George Washington and a: “Page Not Found. Sorry, the page you're looking for does not exist” and a link back to the homepage. The same goes for the dedicated page for Section 9. Searches indicate the government site was modified July 17.

“That is not a good sign,” posted one commenter on Blue Sky.

“I don't have enough variations on 'f——' to express my feelings about this. Please help,” said another Blue Sky user.

Critics say the Trump administration has run up against the Section 9 portion of the Constitution and its Habeas corpus inclusion. Originally imported to the Constitution from English common law, the language was used to ensure the king of England released prisoners when the law did not justify confining them.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has claimed during a committee hearing that the constitutional provision is a tool the administration can use in its broader crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border, claiming it to be “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.”

“That’s incorrect,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H), an attorney, who then explained to Noem that it is actually a “legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.”

Hassan went on to describe it as “the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”

The White House did not immediately respond to emails.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Extortionate': Legal expert shreds Trump's 'impermissible' war on 'constitutional rights'

President Donald Trump's pattern of exerting strategic pressure on various groups into supporting his agenda by threatening their federal support is blatantly unconstitutional, according to one legal expert.

In a Friday op-ed for the Washington Post, University of Pennsylvania law and philosophy professor Mitchell Berman observed that during the first five months of his second term, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to use everything from federal grants, to security clearances, foreign visas and press credentials as "leverage" to arm-twist American institutions into submission.

Berman alluded to Trump threatening to pull federal funding from public universities that have diversity, equity and inclusion programs, withholding press credentials from media outlets that don't use his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico and denying security clearances for law firms that represented clients Trump disagrees with politically, among other examples.

"Different targets, but one common tool: leverage," Berman wrote. "Trump uses federal funds and other government benefits to pressure individuals and institutions into exercising their constitutional rights as he prefers. This is extortionate. And therefore unconstitutional."

In his essay, Berman pointed out that Stephen Miran, who is the chairman of the Trump White House's Council of Economic Advisers, admitted that the president "views tariffs as generating negotiating leverage for making deals," saying that "access to the U.S. consumer market is a privilege that must be earned, not a right." Berman argued that even though federal funding for education and research is also a privilege, Trump is nonetheless taking that same approach to American institutions despite those institutions having explicit rights spelled out in the First, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

"[I]t’s impermissible to withhold benefits for the purpose of shaping or punishing American institutions for exercising the rights they do have — including free speech," Berman said.

"The courts have long recognized that such power requires constitutional limits," he added. "The president may not withhold otherwise available funds, or deny access to government benefits, to make it costly for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights."

Click here to read Berman's full op-ed in the Post (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'I'd be checking for bugs': Republican questions 'constitutionality' of Trump's new jet

The senior U.S. senator from one of the reddest states in the U.S. is now questioning whether President Donald Trump's acceptance of a new jet from a foreign government is legal under the Constitution.

CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju tweeted Monday that Trump's new $400 million jet from the Qatari royal family has now provoked concern from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) — both in terms of his legal authority to accept the gift and how secure the plane really is. She suggested that the administration "need[s] to look at the Constitutionality" of the royal jet before officially using it.

"I’d be checking for bugs is what I’d be checking for," she added.

Capito Moore's concern is likely a reference to the "Emoluments Clause" found in Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. That section explicitly prohibits presidents from accepting gifts from foreign governments without first getting approval by Congress.

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State," the Constitution reads.

Trump insisted in a Truth Social post that the jet is necessary to maintain his presidential travel schedule given that Air Force One's scheduled $4.3 billion upgrades have been delayed by several years. He framed the gift as a win for both himself and for U.S. taxpayers.

"So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plan," Trump wrote. "Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!"

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Stephen Miller confirms Trump 'actively looking at' suspending key pillar of Constitution

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller says the White House is “actively” examining suspending habeas corpus, a constitutional protection that supports the right to due process. Critics, including legal experts, reacted strongly, with some noting that this right has only been suspended in the United States four times.

“Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller, the architect of Trump’s child and family separation policy during his first term, told reporters on Friday.

“So I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” Miller declared, before attacking the judicial branch.

“Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of Western democracies, with roots tracing back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which first established the principle that no person could be imprisoned arbitrarily by the king.

Miller, who has no law degree and is not an attorney, went on to give reporters his understanding of constitutional law.

“So,” Miller concluded, “it’s not just the courts aren’t just at war with the executive branch, the courts are at war with these radical judges, with the legislative branch as well, too,” he opined.

“So all of that will inform the choice of the president ultimately makes, yes.”

Critics blasted the extreme suggestion that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend habeas corpus—Congress does—and that he would attempt to do so when there is no invasion or rebellion, prerequisites mandated by the Constitution.

“Habeas corpus has been suspended only 4 times,” wrote The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. 1) Civil War 2) When Congress authorized it to combat Ku Klux Klan vigilantism during Reconstruction 3) In the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection 4) In Hawaii after Pearl Harbor.”

“The President lacks the power to suspend habeas corpus under Article II. That power is exclusive to Congress under Article I,” explained civil rights attorney Patrick Jaicomo.

“Too bad he never went to law school and doesn’t understand the law,” remarked Professor of Law Joyce Vance, the well-known MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney.

“Suspending habeas corpus,” noted The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, “would suspend the right for everyone, not just for undocumented people. So what Stephen Miller is saying here is that Trump is thinking about asserting the right to throw Americans in prison while giving them no opportunity to use the courts to get out.”

“The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process to everyone within the United States, not just citizens. They’re inventing a fake ‘invasion’ to call for an emergency and give themselves more power,” added political strategist Max Flugrath, Communications Director at Fair Fight Action.

“Don’t even think about it,” remarked U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA).

The well-known attorney George Conway, saying it “can’t be overstated,” called Miller “deeply, deeply disturbed.”

“Suspending habeas corpus. Let that sink in,” commented The Lincoln Project.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Jaime Harrison described Miller’s threatening remarks as “dictatorial b——.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'What do you mean you don't know?' Tapper slams Trump over reply to Constitution question

President Donald Trump is claiming ignorance of one of the most fundamental elements of the presidential oath. And CNN host Jake Tapper is pointing out the absurdity of that claim.

During his Monday show, Tapper told his audience: "Upholding the Constitution for a president is not an optional thing." His monologue was in response to Trump's interview with NBC News' Kristin Welker over the weekend over his answer to Welker asking him "don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?" Welker asked Trump that question when talking about the Supreme Court's 9-0 order to "facilitate" the return of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States and Abrego Garcia being entitled to due process rights despite his immigration status.

"I don't know," Trump replied.

"What do you mean, you don't know?" Tapper exclaimed. "One day later, President Trump has yet to clarify that comment, and his aides are brushing it off. But it could mean something and it could mean something about the rule of law, and it could mean something about appealing rulings that he simply doesn't like."

Tapper began the segment by showing Trump taking the presidential oath of office for the second time on January 20, 2025, to illustrate his point that the president surely knows that he "solemnly" swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The CNN host further emphasized the lack of ambiguity around whether Abrego Garcia had due process rights by playing a 2014 clip of the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In that clip, Scalia made it clear that "anybody who's present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution."

"So here's President Trump answering the question of whether non-citizens deserve due process under the Constitution," Tapper said.

"I don't know. I'm not i'm not a lawyer, I don't know," Trump told Welker.

"Well, the Fifth Amendment says—" Welker said, before Trump interjected.

"I don't know, it seems it seems it might say that. But if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," Trump responded.

"Now, it wouldn't be unreasonable president to answer yes when asked if he or she needs to uphold the Constitution," Tapper said. "But Trump's answer was, 'I don't know.'"

Watch the video below, or by clicking this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles

Tapper tells ex-viewer Trump’s behavior is more about 'personality' than cognitive decline - Alternet.org ›

Contact Advertise with AlterNet Privacy Policy Writer Guidelines Press Information About AlterNet Meet the AlterNet Staff Debug Logs