Comment by _m8fo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _m8fo | Hacker News Reader

I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me:

> To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first. I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of my career.

Given the pedestal that you (presumably, by the amount of points this has gotten) are on, there are more actionable ways to be useful, rather than be a martyr. No mention in the post on how to stop Trump. For example, telling your readers how they can take action to stop Trump. I'll share some of my own thoughts on how to do this. Feel free to respond to this if it's not exhaustive enough.

To follow my own advice, if anyone sees this:

1. Call

  - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)

  - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/)

  - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials)

2. Participate

  - Get involved in local elections (this is a decent start - to become informed locally http://www.npr.org/stations/)

  - Protest

  - Attend town hall and city council meetings (see npr)

3. Share

  - Tell your friends

4. Vote (https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote)

5. Volunteer

6. Stop reading and start doing one of the other things.

Who knows? It may actually help. The news footage of a middle class white man being dragged away by jack booted thugs may elicit much more attention, sympathy and outrage than a "Middle Eastern looking" man undergoing the same, one would think?

And in this current world awash in pithy slogans, short attention spans and social media generated activism, it may actually be more effective.

This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).

>There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years

Actually mass protests to the level of e.g. the French May of 68 might very well bring down a government.

But that is for a determined population.

Except in France, May 68, De Gaulle (conservatist) wasn't ousted, he even came back in favourable position after 3 days off the grid: He threatened to use the État d'Urgence against the strikers, dissolved the Assembly and the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favour. People, at the end, voted for security.

In De Gaulle's case yes. But this has not been the case in every mass protest movement in all countries (plus, France voted, which is much larger than Paris, where the demonstrations were mostly held).

> the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favor

That's probably why the protests didn't work. People in power are incredibly well informed and can predict those things reasonably well.

I keep being surprised by the power that such protests actually have. You'll read all sorts of statements like "what should anybody care about a bunch of hippies on the streets etc.", and in the US there also seems to be an undercurrent of regarding all protests as illegal, or highlighting the smallest incidents that could possibly scare the "soccer mum" demographic.

But then there are frequent examples of protests accomplishing everything from regime change (arab spring) to less-obvious but still substantial changes (see for example the G7/G8 agendas from before and after the meetings started to be a focus for mass demonstrations). Even Occupy, which has probably been the subject of more derision than any other movement, has actually had a major impact: The 99%/1% has become one of the leading narratives of politics in the US and Europe.

Technically congress or the supreme court can overturn executive orders, and this has happened in the past.

Well, he is a bit of a populist, so if you convince enough people, he'll probably go with the flow, on some things at least.

According to the Brookings Institution memo on the Emoluments Clause[1]:

> if Mr. Trump enters office in what would obviously constitute a knowing and indeed intentional violation of the Emoluments Clause and then declines to cure that violation during his tenure, Congress would be well within its rights to impeach him for engaging in “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So, it is conceivable that he could be removed within the next four years if he loses the support of Congress.

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_1216...

The discussion about whether this or that is kind of irrelevant. While the Constitution outlines the sort of offenses Congress may impeach for, it also provides no oversight. There's nobody who can prevent Congress from impeaching for an insufficient offense, nor is there anybody who can force Congress to impeach if they don't want to.

Ultimately, all that matters is whether Congress decides to do it. If they do, then it happens. If they don't, it doesn't. The specific offenses and wording of the Constitution will no doubt matter when it comes to how the individual members of Congress think about the issue, but no more than that. In particular, it doesn't really matter what the Constitution says or how a judge would interpret it, only how the various members of Congress understand it, or choose to interpret it.

I think it's fairly likely to happen, in any case. He and Congress don't see eye to eye on many things, and it may not take too long at all before he pisses them off sufficiently to have them get fed up with it. I imagine they'd rather be dealing with Pence anyway.

There was plenty of time to do something about it. We've been slouching into an imperial presidency for a long time. Democrats could have trimmed it back when they held Congress and the White House. Instead they cheered when Obama said "I have a phone and a pen."

They dismantled checks and balances for temporary tactical advantage because they thought their opponents were a "rump party, mainly confined to the South".

> pray he does something impeachable

I think it's more than that, it has to be impeachable AND Senate Republicans have to dislike it enough to upset their boss, right? Without Senate Republicans' support there can be no impeachment hearing can there?

What if he blatantly breaks the law? Is there anything the supreme court can do?

They have no ability to bring a criminal case against anyone without the cooperation of the executive branch, which Trump controls.

Citizens could file civil lawsuits against the federal government to get injunctions against him. But even then I believe the only repercussion for him not following those injunctions would be Congress impeaching him.

Basically, in order to get charged with a crime the executive branch has to do it. Since the president is the head executive, there has to be a special case for him/her: Congress can bring charges I.e. impeachment proceedings.

Re: #1, both of my senators' numbers terminate in a recording that asks me to leave a message with my contact information. I have a hard time believing anybody listens to these. Am I wrong?

More broadly, I talked to one person at the office of one my state's reps. I complained about this order and said I hoped the rep would voice his opposition, and the person said the rep would. But how much does that matter, especially since the rep is in a heavily Democrat district already? Is targeting swing Republicans a better idea?

Pressure. It may not not be as politically effective, but the weakling Dems need to be pushed in order to fight for us.

Even before Trump, the US had a system in which a Chinese or an Indian who gets a PhD from Scott's department (say) takes > 10 years to get a green card. Previous administrations have laid a solid foundation of shitty treatment of foreigners to which Trump is merely making minor additions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com