the great thing about this with me being president s not going to be an issue because i am going to empower states and localities to enforce federal immigration law. we have this crazy thing were somehow the federal government says it is their sole providence to enforce immigration law under the supremacy clause of the constitution. yet they say states cannot enforce it and be faithful to the law because the federal government does not want to enforce a lot makes no sense we are going to have all hands on deck i have wo work at border sheriffs just as governor of florida in places like arizona and texas. their communities are getting overrun for the state of texas. all states and localities will be empowered to enforce federal law that includes at the border but also includes the interior of our country but if you have criminal aliens state and local need to be working with federal so we can deport the people. we need to work to make sure were deporting illegal aliens in particular the
consider the possibility of donald trump becoming president again, which i don t think he will, which is why i don t factor that in to my legal analysis of where these cases are going, but in the event that he does, there s only two cases here that, as president, he could basically make disappear, and those are the two federal cases. well, i think that s directly true, lawrence, but i think he would have a pretty good argument that the state cases would have to stop, or if he has been convicted and there s an attempt to try to imprison him or something, that the constitution forbids that. the argument is basically based on the supremacy clause of the constitution, which generally doesn t allow one state to undo the nations hole and it s business. i don t think it s right as some people are suggesting to say well the state court cases are absolutely immune from a trump presidency. i don t think they are. and so to me that illustrates the importance of getting
where judge cannon has technically kept that date, but she is going to hear from the parties, she said, in the beginning of march, as to whether that is a feasible date. so i think that case is likely to be pushed off, which, from jack smith s perspective, is probably just fine to have a bigger case, the january 6th case, slot in second. neal, just for a second to consider the possibility of donald trump becoming president again, which i don t think he will, which is why i don t factor that in to my legal analysis of where these cases are going, but in the event that he does, there s only two cases here that, as president, he could basically make disappear, and those are the two federal cases. well, i think that s directly true, lawrence, but i think he would have a pretty good argument that the state cases would have to stop, or if he has been convicted and there s an attempt to try to imprison him or something, that the constitution forbids that. the argument is basically based o
2021 that essentially outlaws attempts to supersede federal gun laws in missouri. the justice department and a federal judge has ruled that s in complete contravention of the supremacy clause of the constitution. in missouri, he s arguing against a strong central federal government and here for trump he s arguing for the strongest possible central presidency. so he is somebody who has shown, i think, a flexibility in terms of his capacity to pivot from one legal argument to the next. for people who didn t listen to it, it s hard to do because there s no cameras. you re listening to the audio. worth listening to. there were a lot of interesting, and as kirschner would say, novel legal arguments made. thanks to the three of you. glenn kirschner, david jolly, and glenn thrush, a good start to the hour. one of the police officers who defended the capitol on
that. that is a recipe for disaster in a state like texas. and secondly, this is about the supremacy clause of the constitution. time after time, the u.s. has said, the federal government has authority to deal with an aggression freshman and lost, knocks that governments. folks remember they did it for instance and 2012, after arizona passed show me your paper s law, we s.b.1070.. and it s very likely the supreme court buddha that here again was taken. however, it s important to know, what s changed since 2012, is this court has become much more conservative. with jobs, they throw at. roe they threw out affirmative action with the harvard case. could this be the next shoe to drop? and they actually empower states with more immigration enforcement? i don t think so and i hope not. but it s also a stickier. julián, i m so glad you talked about s.b.1070.. because you and i watched, we