Constitutional Crisis?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

So the Trump admin deported a couple hundred U.S. residents to El Salvador without due process under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, openly defying a federal court order—prompting a judge to find probable cause for criminal contempt.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled the government must help return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident wrongly deported despite court protection, but he remains imprisoned abroad as the administration simply refuses to act.

Trump then proposed deporting U.S. citizens with violent convictions—calling them “homegrowns”—to Salvadoran prisons, in clear defiance of judicial authority and the Constitution.

A surprising number of Americans seem fine with this because Kilmar might be a gang member—completely missing the point that, if true, he could have been deported legally through due process. Instead, he was disappeared without a trial. Trump’s “homegrown” comment is being brushed off by some very stupid supporters who are happy to imagine violent criminals and pedophiles rotting in foreign jails, without considering the implications of ignoring the Constitution, expelling U.S. citizens without legal recourse, and outsourcing justice to an actual dictatorship.

Are there no principled conservatives left in the US? Senator Hollen had the gumption to go to El Salvador to talk about this—where the hell are the rest of the Dems?

The US is cooked.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It’s Guantánamo all over again.

The U.S. government invents a crisis and grants itself the power to detain “foreigners” without due process. Inevitably, U.S. citizens get swept up too—because why not? There’s no trial, no legal recourse, and no accountability. The courts wag their fingers for years but ultimately fail to restrain the executive. The Constitution, in practice, means nothing.

I’m worried this episode will be even worse. Only two U.S. citizens ended up in Guantánamo, and the Bush administration at least had the decency to be quiet and ashamed about it because enough Republicans still cared about this sort of thing. Trump and his supporters, by contrast, are openly celebrating the idea of shredding the Constitution and disappearing anyone they deem a “bad guy”—proof optional.

[Jamiet99uk]

Fascism in action, very simple.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

At this point, Trump supporters can no longer hide behind claims like "he doesn’t mean it" or "this isn’t technically fascism". It’s abundantly clear he’s testing the limits and discovering there aren’t many.

He’s not joking about a third term. He’s not joking about territorial expansion. He’s not joking about firing the head of the Federal Reserve. He’s openly defying the courts, forging alliances with dictators, and centralizing economic control in ways that deliberately entangle elites and the business class in his project.

Americans needed to find the gumption to call election denialism unacceptable when it was repeated ad nauseam without a shred of evidence. The courts need to draw a red line on habeas corpus and speech rights. Congress must reassert its role in economic and foreign policy before the entire system becomes a one-man show. None of this is happening. Are Americans just so polarized at this point that they can't adhere to any of their own principles?

[Octavious]

He is joking about a third term. He's too old and he knows it, and fears doing a Biden and trashing his reputation. Far better to retire as a two term President and get on with the business of influencing people from the golf course. As it happens I have no great respect for the US constitution, and think that presidential term limits are fundamentally undemocratic, but Trump is not the man who will fight this battle.

No, he's not joking about territorial expansion. I've not seen all of his comments regarding Greenland, but of the ones I have I'm not sure why you'd get the impression that he was. Adding Greenland to the US is sensible and achievable and has been a consideration of various US Presidents for a great deal of time.

Not a clue about the Federal Reserve chap. I assume from your comment that there's a reason Trump might want to fire them and also a reason why Trump shouldn't be able to?

Elected representatives clashing with the courts is nothing new. Even the UK's own pillar of judicial respect, Starmer, was making a stink about a two tier justice system that seemed to be evolving. Is the issue in the courts failing to restrain Trump that the courts never really had sufficient legal power and Trump is demonstrating the fact by his actions, or that they do have power but there's a failure of enforcement?

I confess a lot of how I react to this sort of thing is dictated by expectations and familiarity. One of the more troubling things in North American politics to me is Carney becoming PM despite not being an MP, because it feels fundamentally wrong from a British perspective. Presidents are a more alien creature so when they do stuff there is less of an instinctive feel for whether or not it's overstepping the mark of presidential power. But yes, deportations without due process is highly disturbing. I'm guessing they went down this route because previously the law has proven itself unfit for purpose, but that is a reason to make better law rather than to bypass it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

He is joking about a third term. He's too old and he knows it, and fears doing a Biden and trashing his reputation. Far better to retire as a two term President and get on with the business of influencing people from the golf course. As it happens I have no great respect for the US constitution, and think that presidential term limits are fundamentally undemocratic, but Trump is not the man who will fight this battle.

You're welcome to think he's joking Oct. He says he's not: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/trump-third-term.html

No, he's not joking about territorial expansion. I've not seen all of his comments regarding Greenland, but of the ones I have I'm not sure why you'd get the impression that he was. Adding Greenland to the US is sensible and achievable and has been a consideration of various US Presidents for a great deal of time.

He's restarted calling for Canada to become the 51st state. If it's a joke it's one that damages his own country's reputation.

Not a clue about the Federal Reserve chap. I assume from your comment that there's a reason Trump might want to fire them and also a reason why Trump shouldn't be able to?

The Fed is the US' central bank. He is in a public spat with its leader because he thinks he can bully the Fed into lowering interest rates. The Fed can hopefully withstand this bullying, since legally Trump has only a very slim legal chance of firing its head. If Trump succeeded in this, it would devastate confidence in treasury bonds and the dollar. Even if he's not successful, the rhetoric is damaging and Erdogan-esque. Trump will get to appoint a new Fed chair in 2026 - I will not hold US bonds or equities on that day lol.

Elected representatives clashing with the courts is nothing new. Even the UK's own pillar of judicial respect, Starmer, was making a stink about a two tier justice system that seemed to be evolving. Is the issue in the courts failing to restrain Trump that the courts never really had sufficient legal power and Trump is demonstrating the fact by his actions, or that they do have power but there's a failure of enforcement?

You seem to know this case is quite flagrant and unique, so why make this particular point?

What precedent are you thinking of where the government simply ignores a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court? Unless you have something like this in mind, what purpose do you have in making this particular excuse, which serves as a blanket get-out-of-jail free card for any government to ignore the courts.

I confess a lot of how I react to this sort of thing is dictated by expectations and familiarity. One of the more troubling things in North American politics to me is Carney becoming PM despite not being an MP, because it feels fundamentally wrong from a British perspective. Presidents are a more alien creature so when they do stuff there is less of an instinctive feel for whether or not it's overstepping the mark of presidential power.

Carney became head of the Liberal party legally under Canada's laws and the Liberal party's own bylaws. It was still a bit of a scandal here nonetheless. He will soon be elected with the largest majority of any Canadian PM since the 1980s so I expect this concern will fade away.

This is frankly not one of the more troubling political things happening in North America lol, I advise you pay more attention to what's happening in the US if this strikes you as beyond the pale.

But yes, deportations without due process is highly disturbing. I'm guessing they went down this route because previously the law has proven itself unfit for purpose, but that is a reason to make better law rather than to bypass it.

The law didn't allow Trump to deport folks with no trial (and without even correctly IDing them) and so it was found "unfit for purpose". Trump's purpose here is lawless deportations.

[Jamiet99uk]

But yes, deportations without due process is highly disturbing. I'm guessing they went down this route because previously the law has proven itself unfit for purpose, but that is a reason to make better law rather than to bypass it.

The law didn't allow Trump to deport folks with no trial (and without even correctly IDing them) and so it was found "unfit for purpose". Trump's purpose here is lawless deportations.

Trump simgly throwing people in jail, and freeing other people, who cares, goes beyond his presidential powers.-

[Octavious]

You're welcome to think he's joking Oct. He says he's not: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/trump-third-term.html

I've read too many NYT articles about the UK that were blatantly wrong about core issues for me to take it seriously about anything else. But yes, he's joking. I wish he wasn't as abolishing that rule would be great, but he is.

He's restarted calling for Canada to become the 51st state. If it's a joke it's one that damages his own country's reputation.

Without question. Although I dare say that as Trump simply being President also damages his country's reputation in the eyes of many he's probably developed something of a thick skin about it.

He is in a public spat with its leader because he thinks he can bully the Fed into lowering interest rates

Ah, the age old debate over whether interest rates should be in the hands of elected representatives or people supposedly free of political motivation. Nice to know that some things never change.

You seem to know this case is quite flagrant and unique, so why make this particular point?

What precedent are you thinking of where the government simply ignores a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court? Unless you have something like this in mind, what purpose do you have in making this particular excuse, which serves as a blanket get-out-of-jail free card for any government to ignore the courts.

I really know very little about it. BBC reporting on the issue essentially says a Federal judge has made a ruling that gives the government a week to act, and the government may well appeal. It all sounds less dramatic and far less immediate on this side of the Atlantic. Regardless I don't see anything in what I've written that constitutes an excuse, so I find myself unable to comment on something that doesn't exist.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I've read too many NYT articles about the UK that were blatantly wrong about core issues for me to take it seriously about anything else. But yes, he's joking. I wish he wasn't as abolishing that rule would be great, but he is.

Trump has said it publicly, repeatedly, on video and at rallies. It’s not a question of media interpretation.

If you want to nurse some NYT grudge then we can find a source of any political valence you want reporting on this.

How do you pick and choose which direct Trump quotes, given with context, you believe?

And how can you know which improbable, un-strategic, and outlandish things that Trump earnestly says are jokes, and which aren't?

It seems to me most statements like this are neither jokes nor firm plans - Trump repeats things he actually wants to do (annex Canada, run for a third term) to see if they're possible, then pushes as far as possible in that direction.

Ah, the age old debate over whether interest rates should be in the hands of elected representatives or people supposedly free of political motivation. Nice to know that some things never change.

So Trump publicly threatening the Fed chair, demanding loyalty, and trying to undermine the institution’s credibility in markets is a strategic and not-at-all-reckless foray into the debate about how best to set interest rates?

A debate that, by the way, was solved decades ago lol—the only modern market economies that periodically put money supply and interest rate policy under political control are Turkey and Argentina.

I really know very little about it. BBC reporting on the issue essentially says a Federal judge has made a ruling that gives the government a week to act, and the government may well appeal. It all sounds less dramatic and far less immediate on this side of the Atlantic.

The Trump administration deported legal U.S. residents in defiance of a federal court injunction, effectively disappearing them without due process. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was illegal and ordered the government to help return him. Weeks later, he remains imprisoned abroad, and the administration has taken no action to comply.

But you're taking a bunch of solace in the fact that this might be found legal on appeal?

This is concerning as fuck. Why does the Trump admin feel empowered to extradite legal US residents with no due process in the first place? Why doesn't the Administration feel compelled to at least pretend to comply with a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court?

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump's agents are taking the law into their own hands left, right, and centre, causing actual distress and harm to actual human beings. Damn right it's concerning.

[Jamiet99uk]

This is what is happening in the USA right now, and it is fundamentally fascist, white nationalist, and dictatorial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025