The usual suspects...Southern poverty law center on line 2 probably.

Somebody call the whaaaambulance for Bill. Dumb ass Bill.

ABA is in on the grift. They are pissed to lose their cut.

We should not give them a ****ing dime. They have turned their vocation into a complete embarrassment.

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Apparently USAID supports the ABA.

---

Good grief. Do they really?

BigOil said:

---

So everyone likes to say "shall not be infringed" for the 2nd

But this isn't as clear? " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

---

It is nowhere near as clear:

Quote:

---

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

Quote:

---

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

---

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

But Biden ignoring Supreme Court rulings and not protecting our borders was legal? Why didn't they speak up then? Hmmmm…

---

The same reason 'they're' squawking about egg prices now but didn't say a peep for 4 years when everything doubled in price.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

But Biden ignoring Supreme Court rulings and not protecting our borders was legal? Why didn't they speak up then? Hmmmm…

---

This is a perfect example of the Validity of what some call "Whataboutism."

It exposes not only hypocrisy, but highlights the attempt of institutions to alter their prior stance due to nothing more than a change in Administrators who they don't like.

To the tune of a LOT of our money.

The ABA is a liberal special interest advocacy group. Period.

They are not experts on anything but liberalism.

Pizza said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

But Biden ignoring Supreme Court rulings and not protecting our borders was legal? Why didn't they speak up then? Hmmmm…

---

This is a perfect example of the Validity of what some call "Whataboutism."

It exposes not only hypocrisy, but highlights the attempt of institutions to alter their prior stance due to nothing more than a change in Administrators who they don't like.

---

WaPo already has their leftist talking points out.


The key point here is that Biden didn't just go and do what the Supreme Court told him he couldn't. The Supreme Court didn't say "you can't provide student loan relief, period." It said he couldn't forgive the debt via the method he initially tried. He then tried other, more targeted methods to relieve the burden.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/11/trump-administration-constitutional-crisis/

Be ready!

p_bubel said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Apparently USAID supports the ABA.

---

Good grief. Do they really?

---

---

In another shocker, people losing access to money are the biggest whiners about the state of the government.

This paragraph really jumped out at me...

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

Am I the only one who read this as an incredibly sophomoric statement that fails under its own weight?

Reasons I thought so:
1. The Heritage Foundation, among others, have made multiple arguments that the wording of the 14th Amendment and the statement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is legally ambiguous and in need of SCOTUS clarification.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

This is literally why attorneys exist. For the president of the ABA to unequivocally state that any other interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an affront to the rule of law is a MAJOR tell.

2. See how the dismantling of USAID is just thrown in the sentence with no other argument? Also known as the package-deal fallacy. Another major tell.

3. "attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs..." wtf? Did I miss where anyone has been indicted?

That letter truly reads more like a product of panic and a propaganda attempt to convince the uninformed than it does any sort of letter I've ever read from an accomplished attorney.

infinity ag said:

---

How much $ did these guys get through USAID?

---

That was the exact question I had:

The American Bar Association (ABA) receives significant funding from USAID for various international programs. According to the lawsuit filed against the Trump administration, approximately 38% of ABA's FY 2025 international awards funding is derived from USAID[7]. Currently, the ABA implements nineteen programs funded by USAID either directly or via subaward[7].

In addition to USAID funding, the ABA also receives funding from the Department of State. The lawsuit states that the ABA implements 59 programs funded by the Department of State, committing more than $109 million in funding over the next five years[7]. Of this amount, $67 million has already been spent, with approximately $42 million remaining frozen as of December 2024[7].

It's important to note that these figures are specific to the ABA's international programs and do not represent the organization's entire budget. The ABA is a large organization with various sources of funding, including membership dues and other revenue streams.

Citations:
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-faces-new-lawsuit-usaid-contractors-2029519
[2] https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/aba-president-bay-denounces-chaotic-attacks-on-the-rule-of-law
[3] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2019&id=D000043801
[4] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/trump-hit-with-new-suit-asserting-unlawful-shuttering-of-usaid
[5] https://www.voanews.com/a/white-house-fires-usaid-inspector-general-after-funding-oversight-warning-officials-say-/7971828.html
[6] https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-bar-association
[7] https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/usaid-contractors-sue-funding-freeze-agency-dismantling.pdf
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/trump-usaid-lawsuit-foreign-aid.html
[9] https://www.usaid.gov/laos/press-release/united-states-supports-lao-bar-association-increase-free-legal-access-vulnerable-populations

---
Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share

GTFO

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

To the tune of a LOT of our money.

The ABA is a liberal special interest advocacy group. Period.

They are not experts on anything but liberalism.

---

That is frik'n insanity.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Interesting. Always thought of it as a sort of trade group or guild organization but it may be something like the AARP, where membership was general and relatively non partisan from a party standpoint long ago, and was focused is issues broadly concerning all members, but gradually co-opted by the more activist left as a useful resource to commandeer for political activism as needed. I imagine there was the same pattern in many now left dominated institutions: it didn't start that way.

---

The American Institute of Architects is exactly like this...

I was a member for ten years in the 80's early 90's, mostly because the first eight years my dues were paid for by my employer...then I went on my own and found out about their fees, fee structure and State membership requirements...including fees for my employees whether they are registered architects or not or whether they were in the AIA or not....

Let the membership lap: a couple years later I get an official "come back" letter...They added the enticement that they would designating me Fellow of the AIA...being a Fellow is a big deal; in case you don't know.

Wondered..."why would they offer me Fellowship?" Then I read the fine print...Basically, it was - we need you in the AIA because you are Hispanic. I responded with "thanks, don't want to be a member of a racist organization...FO! They still send me membership request every first and last month of the year...

Trump pauses enforcement of foreign bribery law, cites harm to "American economic competitiveness." https://t.co/LuQpOX9G4Y

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) February 11, 2025

Trump partly defied court order on frozen funds, federal judge says; is there an Article II exception? https://t.co/PzuzLZX7ZS #ruleoflaw

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) February 11, 2025

ABA is all in on taking down Trump.

No one cares what those leftist **** bags have to say. No need to post it.

All the pigs are squealing.. NGOs around the US afraid they will lose their millions from
USAid

The car warranty callers are far more reputable than anyone at the ABA.

jrdaustin said:

---

This paragraph really jumped out at me...

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

Am I the only one who read this as an incredibly sophomoric statement that fails under its own weight?

Reasons I thought so:
1. The Heritage Foundation, among others, have made multiple arguments that the wording of the 14th Amendment and the statement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is legally ambiguous and in need of SCOTUS clarification.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

This is literally why attorneys exist. For the president of the ABA to unequivocally state that any other interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an affront to the rule of law is a MAJOR tell.

2. See how the dismantling of USAID is just thrown in the sentence with no other argument? Also known as the package-deal fallacy. Another major tell.

3. "attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs..." wtf? Did I miss where anyone has been indicted?

That letter truly reads more like a product of panic and a propaganda attempt to convince the uninformed than it does any sort of letter I've ever read from an accomplished attorney.

---

Agree. The very first paragraph of that ABA diatribe gives away the bias completely. Its not settled law that birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution and SCOTUS is needed to aid with that interpretation. To me that's the reason Trump signed his EO is that he wants it settled so he's pushing the issue.

Also, a tactic I've noticed of leftists, the media, Dems to gin up outrage about Trump/Elon and DOGE is stating the more altruistic true mission of some of these bureaucratic agencies as though that is under assault by Elon and Trump. If the agencies had stuck true to their mission, there might not be as much scrutiny. But many of these agencies have simply become so bloated, wasteful, and worst of all corrupt that the only solution is to burn them to the ground and start over. Those on the left ignore that part of this deal and ignore that a majority of Americans put Trump in office in part to clean this mess up.

p_bubel said:

---

**** man.
Am I the only person in this country that's not getting a USAid payout?

I knew it was bad, but not THIS bad.

---

Not the only one

VegasAg86 said:

---

BigOil said:

---

So everyone likes to say "shall not be infringed" for the 2nd

But this isn't as clear? " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

---

It is nowhere near as clear:

Quote:

---

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

Quote:

---

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

---

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

---

Not sure Jacob Howard's argument benefits the position you are wanting to take.

He specifically argues to include the jurisdiction clause so that it won't apply to: foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States

And this is true - children born to foreign ambassadors/ministers here serving in official capacity do not become citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment (because of the jurisdiction clause).


But continue reading Howard's argument and he says: "…but will include every other class of person."

So according to Howard, 14th Amendment applies to every other class of person EXCEPT people who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors/foreign ministers in the US.

So persons born to a foreigner/alien who belongs to families of ambassador/foreign minister = not a citizen.
Every other person = citizen.

Quote:

---

The ABA supports the rule of law left wing causes

---

Quote:

---

But continue reading Howard's argument and he says: "…but will include every other class of person."

So according to Howard, 14th Amendment applies to every other class of person EXCEPT people who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors/foreign ministers in the US.

---

As in having permission to be in the US. Same thing in the Wong Kim Ark case. His parents were in the US legally, when he was born. That is the only situation addressed in that case.

IDaggie06 said:

---

Take away their 501(c).

"The organizational definition in 501(c)(3) restricts the ability of a charitable organization to participate in political activity in two ways: (1) lobbying cannot be a substantial part of its activities and (2) it may not intervene in political campaigns."

---

they are not a 501(c)(3) charity. they are a 501(c)(6). they make money from membership dues not from charity.

the payments are deductible business expenses except for the amount that they must disclose as lobbying.

Are my dues tax-deductible?

You may be able to deduct up to 98% of your dues as a business expense on your U.S. taxes. The ABA estimates that 2% of your total ABA dues are allocated to ABA lobbying activities and therefore is not deductible. Be sure to consult your tax advisor with any questions.


its the same with the AICPA. also a stupid organization that wants to sell you life insurance all the time. AICPA is stood up by big CPA, The major accounting firms require their CPA's to be members.

agaberto said:

---

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/

February 10, 2025

FROM THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

The ABA supports the rule of law

It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law.

The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.

Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. "Nevertheless," he said, "in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow." He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.

In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration's actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day.

These actions have forced affected parties to seek relief in the courts, which stand as a bulwark against these violations. We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.

These actions do not make America stronger. They make us weaker. Many Americans are rightly concerned about how leaders who are elected, confirmed or appointed are proceeding to make changes. The goals of eliminating departments and entire functions do not justify the means when the means are not in accordance with the law. Americans expect better. Even among those who want change, no one wants their neighbor or their family to be treated this way. Yet that is exactly what is happening.

These actions have real-world consequences. Recently hired employees fear they will lose their jobs because of some matter they were assigned to in the Justice Department or some training they attended in their agency. USAID employees assigned to build programs that benefit foreign countries are being doxed, harassed with name-calling and receiving conflicting information about their employment status. These stories should concern all Americans because they are our family members, neighbors and friends. No American can be proud of a government that carries out change in this way. Neither can these actions be rationalized by discussion of past grievances or appeals to efficiency. Everything can be more efficient, but adherence to the rule of law is paramount. We must be cognizant of the harm being done by these methods.

Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.

There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.

We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.

We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.

William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association

Another leftist organization that needs to be dismantled.

Trump is the greatest defender of the law and our country.

---

This has to be fake.

Cobra39

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But continue reading Howard's argument and he says: "…but will include every other class of person."

So according to Howard, 14th Amendment applies to every other class of person EXCEPT people who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors/foreign ministers in the US.

---

As in having permission to be in the US. Same thing in the Wong Kim Ark case. His parents were in the US legally, when he was born. That is the only situation addressed in that case.

---

So illegal aliens are not subject to US law, and can't be arrested, tried and convicted for crimes committed while in the US?

Listen to Mark Levin some time. He explains it extensively. They are subject to laws. They are not subjects of the United States.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Listen to Mark Levin some time. He explains it extensively. They are subject to laws. They are not subjects of the United States.

---

From the majority opinion in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark:

Quote:

---

The Fourteenth Amendment only calls for a narrow group of exceptions to the broad principle of birthright citizenship. The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State both of which, . . . by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. . . .

The Citizenship Clause applies to children born on American soil to non-citizen parents; if they fall outside of the narrow exceptions written into the Fourteenth Amendment, they become U.S. citizens, even though their parents were citizens of another county. The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

---

Good luck getting SCOTUS to overturn that decision.

Do you read the 2nd Amendment in the same specific and limiting manner?

I just don't understand why we don't just deport the parents. They can leave their kid who is a citizen is but have to give up all parental rights.