ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says

In other words, no, you don’t. Talking to reporters is covered by the first amendment. Talking to school officials is covered by the first amendment. Being at a protest is covered by the first amendment. Simply at protest where other people do something illegal is covered by the first amendment, too. Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity, this should be textbook civil rights law.

> Green cards can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion.

Can you provide a citation to that law?

Once the enforcers are loyalists, it hardly matters how the courts rule.

I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible.

Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army.

You should answer a few questions:

(1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights?

(2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society?

(3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law?

(4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?

The declaration of independence[1] was America's founding document, it laid down why the British colonizing the American continent felt they had a right to overthrow their government and secede. It was likely also written to create a mandate[2]/consent for the new ruling government. The document is extremely relevant to Americans right now who have forgotten its contents and what it cost.

It is somewhat of a culmination of the Age of Enlightenment[3], which is period where philosophical thinkers largely tried to make the "golden rule"[4] rigorous. John Locke[5] was a philosopher who wrote about the idea of a "social contract"[6] which is the absolute core of liberalism and "western"[7] ideals. The social contract is a philosophical idea, but the declaration of independence was a real world implementation of it. I think the french have their own.

A well armed militia is somewhat connected to this idea in that the 2nd amendment en-codifies the right to be able to withdrawal consent to be governed[8] when a government stops protecting rights. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine for despotism. Technology however has advanced to a point where guns don't matter too much because a despotic government can prevent "free association"[9] with the use of a massive surveillance state that can detect "militias" growing before they are able to gather enough power to withdrawal consent.

Conservatism/Liberalism is a little confused in America. Liberals abandoned some of the core tenets of liberty, such as the 2nd amendment, solidarity, and making sure that those who violate the social contract experience consequences -- crime can't go unpunished and unjustices can't be allowed to fester. Liberals don't want to pay the maintenance cost of maintaining rule of law[10] because speaking truth to power[11] or meaningfully challenging those in power is dangerous. "Freedom isn't free" is a liberal idea born out of liberal philosophy despite conservatives saying it. "If none of us will die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny" is something some Americans grew up hearing from their fathers. Conservatives say a lot of liberal things, but don't understand where they come from or why they say them, creating a kind of "cargo cult"[12] Americanism where they perform American rituals without understanding the substance of those rituals. Conservatives largely aim to "conserve" christian culture, but the vast majority of Christians have almost completely abandoned the teachings of Jesus. Most of them will say things that are correct at face value, but they frequently aren't well educated enough to understand what they say, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.

I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics) [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke [6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract [7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture [8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed [9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association [10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power [12]https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Even a statement is fine. The point is this argument is vacuous if both sides assume intent.

> I’ll leave it to folks saying he has done something to prove it

Sure. They do that in court filings. It just takes time. (And maybe it’s all bunk!)