The US government owns this particular parcel, but the city of Philadelphia owns Independence Square a block south, and the buildings on it and should evict the United States before July if they can possibly figure a way to. Overthrowing tyrants is sort of the whole point of the place.
I just don't see what people are complaining about. You want a mirror image reflecting the seat of government? Well, here's a tank full of pond scum. Mission accomplished.
As always the executive's separation of powers concern is that they are having difficulty separating Congress and the judiciary from their powers.
Never has the journalistic directive to "follow the money" seemed more apt. I'm certainly watching this space for the (inevitable?) follow-up piece to her question about halfway down.
*–Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907)
But I don't see how they could win on the 287(g) prohibition. Doing so would mean _not_ entering into an agreement with DHS is itself unconstitutional.
States choosing not to do it are not overriding federal law that says DHS 'may' enter into agreements; that's just not how agreements work. 2/
DOJ will win on the mask law. I don't know why states think they can do that even if DHS' argument that they're necessary because officers are cowards is ridiculous. 1/
And prohibiting localities from doing so is the reserved function of the state governments, which didn't have to create those localities in the first place and may therefore establish their limits.
I was in the Not-City of Allegheny just this morning, which I think hammers home that point*. 3/3
Listening to the far right cheer “send them back” in Europe’s parliament made it clear how important this event is. I’ll deliver a warning: third country deportation agreements promote “remigration,” undermine refugee protection, violate human rights, and fund corrupt governments.
