Laurence TribeVerified account

@tribelaw

"No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world." -- Robin Williams

Joined November 2015

Tweets

You blocked @tribelaw

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @tribelaw

  1. Pinned Tweet

    FWIW, , not even a declaration of “national emergency” would enable Trump to seize the private property needed for his wall without specific authorization from Congress. Truman learned that the hard way in SCOTUS’s Steel Seizure decision (1952)(enjoining the seizure).

    Undo
  2. These “military eminent domain” cases are all about seizing enemy property or property about to fall into enemy hands. Last time I checked, the United States wasn’t at war with ranchers in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas.

    Undo
  3. The fact that 10 U.S. Code § 2663 authorizes seizure of land for a list of purposes (eg “military training camps” & “coast defenses”) that doesn’t include building walls to keep immigrants out would be treated under the Steel Seizure decision as akin to a congressional ban.

    Undo
  4. Exactly. And the Steel Seizure precedent, Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), is universally accepted as binding constitutional law even in undoubted wartime emergencies.

    Undo
  5. Yep. Just read Michael Lewis’s The Fifth Risk. Team Trump is clueless about what each govt department is there to do.

    Undo
  6. Who’s surprised? Puppets are often parrots.

    Undo
  7. Undo
  8. So? I’m for indicting without fear or favor, following the law and neither shielding presidents nor tossing them to the mercies of mob “justice.”

    Undo
  9. Impeachment mustn’t become a popularity contest — or an unpopularity contest. Tilting either way on that axis would wreck our republic.

    Undo
  10. BREAKING NEWS: Trump just threatened to use his “emergency powers” to deploy the military to build his Great Wall without permission from Congress. This deserves much more attention than it’s getting — so far. Watch this space.

    Undo
  11. I’m among the “experts” quoted as agreeing that any sitting president can be indicted if it’s done the right way. Just saying.

    Undo
  12. Undo
  13. Retweet if, like me, you want to salute these heroic American veterans 👍🏼⬇️

    Undo
  14. Undo
  15. I agree with and about the congresswoman’s crude impeachment remark. But the way Trump’s base is exploiting her outburst is sheer hypocrisy. Dem leaders are approaching the “I” word with due care. GOP leaders are using it as a taunt and a dare.

    Undo
  16. Undo
  17. Thanks! and I hope our book offers a valuable guide for thinking about impeachment over the year ahead

    Undo
  18. Retweeted
    20 hours ago

    Very shrewd point in the excellent / Matz impeachment book: "impeachment talk" is most often started by a president's *supporters* to mobilize (& fundraise from!) allies. Explains the commotion on Twitter & Fox about one intemperate remark

    Undo
  19. Undo
  20. Only two possible answers to ’s excellent question: Trump is either Putin’s puppet or a complete fool — or both. Either one would put our national security at grave risk. The combination is disastrous.

    Undo

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

    You may also like

    ·