VIDEO: Donald Trump Makes New Racist Statement On DACA

VIDEO: Donald Trump Makes New Racist Statement On DACA the way; he has attacked the courts, the press, his predecessor, his former electoral opponent, members of his party, the intelligence community, and even his own attorney general; he has failed to release his tax returns or to fill senior political positions in many agencies; he has shown indifference to ethics concerns; he has lies; he has shifted back and forth and back again on his policies, often contradicting Cabinet officials along regularly interjected a self-regarding political element into apolitical events; he has monetized the presidency is a norm-busting president without parallel in American history. He has told scores of easily disprovable public by linking it to his personal business interests; and he has engaged in cruel public behavior. The list goes on and on. Presidential norm-breaking is neither new nor always bad. Thomas Jefferson refused to continue the There is no canonical list of presidential norms. They are rarely noticed until they are violated. Donald Trump practice begun by George Washington and John Adams of delivering the State of the Union address in person before Congress, because he believed it resembled the British monarch speaking before Parliament. For the next 112 briefings, pay public respect to our allies, and not fire the FBI director for declining to pledge his loyalty. years, presidents conveyed the State of the Union in writing—until Woodrow Wilson astonished Congress by structure their actions. Norms, not laws, create the expectation that a president will take regular intelligence addressing it in person, a practice that once again settled into a norm. Wilson's novel step was part of a

http://bit.ly/2x5nVnN

ran the FBI, the bureau regularly leaked (or threatened to leak) secretly collected intelligence information about U.S. citizens, including government officials, in order to influence democratic politics. The intelligence another taboo—against using intelligence information for political ends. In the bad old days when J. Edgar Hoover reforms of the mid-1970s and beyond eliminated this pernicious practice for four decades and were believed to government. The gush of this information to the public was an astounding breach of privacy. 
It also violated yet have created a culture that would prevent its recurrence. The anti-Trump leaks mark a dangerous throwback. These norm violations are an immune response to Trump's attacks on the intelligence community. But the toll from constitutional privacy protections. For this reason, it is typically treated with special care inside the the leaks has been significant and may outlast the Trump presidency. Although a future president likely won't find advantage in following Trump's example, intelligence officials who have discovered the political power of acquires this type of data without suspicion that the citizen has engaged in wrongdoing, and thus without leaking secretly collected information about Americans may well continue the practice. A world without norms to information about U.S. citizens "incidentally collected" during surveillance of a foreign agent. The government prevent the disclosure of sensitive information about U.S. citizens is not just a world in which Michael Flynn is revealed as a liar and removed from office. It is also a world in which intelligence bureaucrats repeat the trick for very different political ends that they deem worthy but that might not be. Trump has not attacked the U.S.

game liên quân

years, judicial norms and trust in the judiciary might take a serious hit. But there are reasons to think this president lacked legitimacy on immigration issues. If judges were to continue such behavior for four or eight won't happen. Federal judges sit in a hierarchical system with the Supreme Court at the top. The highest court in to rule against him across the board based on what seemed to many a tacit determination that the just-elected the land doesn't just overrule lower-court legal decisions; it can also model proper judicial behavior. This is what the Supreme Court did in its opinion in late June announcing that it would review the lower-court decisions or defensive because of his tweeted attacks. But they neglected principles of restraint, prudence, and precedent about Trump's second immigration order. The nine justices rarely agree on any issue of importance. But they unanimously ruled that, at a minimum, the lower-court injunctions were too broad and had failed to take his against Trump on many issues, especially with regard to the first order. They had plenty of reasons to be angry national-security prerogatives seriously enough. The Court did not indicate how it will ultimately rule. But its to give the government's national-security determinations proper deference. The judges had many avenues to rule sober, respectful, low-temperature opinion sent a strong signal about the importance of judicial detachment. For this reason, the judiciary has a fighting chance to return to normal patterns. The same cannot be said of the extend constitutional protections to noncitizens who lacked any connection to the United States. And they failed Twitter and the cable shows were aquiver for several hours with the possibility that Trump would defy the court. "What would happen if the administration were to simply ignore this court order and continue to deny people entry?, " MSNBC national correspondent Joy Reid asked her guests on All In. Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who had brought the case against Trump, treated the question as a live possibility. "I don't want to be James Robart halted the entire immigration order nationwide in the middle of the afternoon on Friday, February 3, overly dramatic, Joy, " he said, "but you would have a constitutional crisis." FROM OUR OCTOBER 2017 ISSUE Try 2 FREE issues of The Atlantic SUBSCRIBE The hardest question in American constitutional law was suddenly raised: Why does a president, who controls what Alexander Hamilton described as "the sword of the community, " abide by a judicial decision he abhors? Trump wouldn't have been the first president to flout a court order. Six weeks into Homeland Security had ordered them not to filled the news. When a federal district-court judge in Seattle named the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln defied a ruling by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that the president lacked the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and Franklin Roosevelt threatened to ignore the Supreme Court in a World War II case involving Nazi saboteurs. But during the next few decades, judicial authority solidified. Though was unclear whether border agents were complying with the injunctions, and rumors that Trump or his Department of many worried that Nixon would disobey the Supreme Court in 1974 when it ordered him to turn over his incriminating examples show that presidential norm violations have often been central to presidential leadership. Even if programs. Trump is far less hypocritical than past presidents—and that is a bad thing. These and countless other presidents don't always get the calculation right (Roosevelt's court-packing plan was and remains almost universally derided), they usually break norms to try to improve the operations of government. Trump's norm violations are different. Many of them appear to result from his lack of emotional intelligence—a "president's ability to manage his emotions and turn them to constructive purposes, rather than being dominated by them and increase the number of Supreme Court justices in order to secure more favorable interpretations of his New Deal allowing them to diminish his leadership, " as the Princeton political scientist Fred I. Greenstein has put it. Trump's behavior seems to flow from hypersensitivity untempered by shame, a mercurial and contrarian personality, and a notable lack of self-control. A corollary to Trump's shamelessness is that he often doesn't seek to hide Franklin Roosevelt won a third term, in 1940. Roosevelt tried but failed to break another norm when he sought to or even spin his norm-breaking. Put another way, he is far less hypocritical than past presidents—and that is a bad thing. Hypocrisy is an underappreciated political virtue. It can palliate self-interested and politically uniform outcry that will reinforce norms for future presidents about denouncing racism and racial violence. The majority of the other presidential norms that Trump has defied will similarly be strengthened by the reactions to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information about U.S. citizens is not just a world in which Michael Flynn is revealed as a liar and removed from office. It is also a world in which intelligence bureaucrats repeat the trick leaking secretly collected information about Americans may well continue the practice. A world without norms to for very different political ends that they deem worthy but that might not be. Trump has not attacked the U.S. military while president, but he has taken a wrecking ball to customs of civilian–military relations. More than other presidents, he has staffed senior positions with current and former military brass. He has attempted to leverage popular admiration for the military into backing for his policies, such as by signing his initial find advantage in following Trump's example, intelligence officials who have discovered the political power of executive order on immigration in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes and by giving political speeches before military audiences. He has even urged soldiers to contact members of Congress in support of his policies, contrary to regulations and customs forbidding them from lobbying. These practices threaten to politicize the military and the leaks has been significant and may outlast the Trump presidency. Although a future president likely won't leave "tattered shreds of the military's ethics and values in their wake, " Phillip Carter of the Center for a New American Security wrote for Slate. Even if future presidents don't repeat Trump's practices, he will have done great harm if attitudes change within the military toward the chain of command and the appropriateness of service members' engagement in politics. Trump is also politicizing the judiciary. He has accused the judges reviewing VIDEO: Donald Trump Makes New Racist Statement On DACA