I think we should sue private citizen and business man Trump. After all he hasn't forfeited his conflicts of interest in business and therefore potentially opens himself up for personal legal battles. We need to push back on his immunity for official acts since many of his business ventures are malignant opportunism and may not be lumped in with his official acts as president. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on a presidential criminal liability case and maybe we need to push that precedent harder and farther since he is clearly breaking the law and his duty as president by ignoring the balance of powers.
All your points are accurate I was only seeking to make the suggestion that you at least reference the legal actions and then explain why that's not sufficient. If you did reference legal actions then of course it's not needed to insert a reference.
Are any of them doing anything that takes away anything from the regime as opposed to just stopping them from doing something today so they can try something new tomorrow?
In other words, are any of the D governors and attorneys general doing anything offensive rather than defensive? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that defensive lawsuits should not be pursued, but they only do so much. There will always be another way for the regime to abuse the rights of the people, unless the states start taking offensive action that makes the regime think twice about trying again.
I bet that if Maryland were to charge the people involved in Abrego Garcia's abduction, all the way up the chain, with kidnapping, false imprisonment and conspiracy, that the regime would think twice about abducting anybody else.
States could pass laws to protect their residents from unlawful or unclear detentions, especially in cases where individuals claim to be acting under federal authority but refuse to identify themselves. Any law enforcement action taken within state borders with the intent to detain, apprehend, or remove a person would be required to be logged ahead of time with state or local authorities. That log would include the names of everyone involved, the agency they’re working for, the legal basis for the action, and where the person is being taken. As soon as the apprehension takes place, this information must be made available to the individual’s next of kin or legal counsel.
If someone in plainclothes tries to detain or remove a person without first showing proper ID, confirming their agency, and—if entering private property—presenting a judicial warrant, the state can treat that as a presumptively unlawful detention. In those cases, local or state police wouldn’t just be allowed to intervene—they’d be required to. Officers could immediately detain the acting party to verify their authority and begin an investigation into possible impersonation, unlawful detention, or attempted kidnapping.
To protect due process, the state could also require that anyone apprehended within its borders be held in a state- or locally-controlled facility for a minimum of 48 hours before they can be removed from the state. This holding period would ensure the individual has access to legal counsel, family notification, and judicial review. A habeas corpus case would be triggered automatically at the moment of apprehension, and no cooperation—by jails, databases, or officers—would be allowed until that legal review happens. Federal agents or others seeking custody would retain full access to the individual for interviews or legal process during that time, but not physical transfer.
The state could also make it a violation of the law for any state or local resources—whether personnel, facilities, data systems, or funding—to be used in violation of these protections. Any such use could trigger the immediate termination of cooperation with the agency or entity involved, including the withdrawal of all material support, personnel assistance, or access to state services. This wouldn't just be about accountability—it would be about drawing a clear line: if an outside actor refuses to respect the state's laws, they don’t get to use the state's tools.
To enforce this more directly, the state could define any removal from its territory in violation of these requirements as an act of kidnapping under state law—particularly where the removal occurs without proper identification, without a judicial warrant, or before the 48-hour review period is complete. While this would almost certainly provoke a legal challenge from the federal government under the Supremacy Clause, recent events have made it clear that secretive removals and plainclothes detentions pose real threats to public safety and civil rights. That challenge may be exactly what’s needed to draw new lines around how far federal power can go when it risks stripping people of basic constitutional protections.
If someone is removed from the state anyway, while a habeas case is pending, that could become grounds for legal counsel to demand their return and challenge the removal in court. It wouldn’t just be about immigration or federal power—it would be about protecting residents from disappearing into legal limbo, and ensuring that no one is taken from state soil without a real chance to be heard.
TY. And if it's exhausting, remember that all the major battles the US has ever engaged in were. We have to just keep putting one foot in front of the other & stick with it til the end.
I think we should sue private citizen and business man Trump. After all he hasn't forfeited his conflicts of interest in business and therefore potentially opens himself up for personal legal battles. We need to push back on his immunity for official acts since many of his business ventures are malignant opportunism and may not be lumped in with his official acts as president. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on a presidential criminal liability case and maybe we need to push that precedent harder and farther since he is clearly breaking the law and his duty as president by ignoring the balance of powers.
I agree 100%
All your points are accurate I was only seeking to make the suggestion that you at least reference the legal actions and then explain why that's not sufficient. If you did reference legal actions then of course it's not needed to insert a reference.
Fair, I added a clarifying note
I suggest that you reference some of the ongoing lawsuits that Democratic states governors and attorney generals are doing but put it in the context of they're not doing enough: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-some-highlights-of-la-_cqSuMviQY2VcI4Z0ivPmg
Are any of them doing anything that takes away anything from the regime as opposed to just stopping them from doing something today so they can try something new tomorrow?
In other words, are any of the D governors and attorneys general doing anything offensive rather than defensive? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that defensive lawsuits should not be pursued, but they only do so much. There will always be another way for the regime to abuse the rights of the people, unless the states start taking offensive action that makes the regime think twice about trying again.
I bet that if Maryland were to charge the people involved in Abrego Garcia's abduction, all the way up the chain, with kidnapping, false imprisonment and conspiracy, that the regime would think twice about abducting anybody else.
States could pass laws to protect their residents from unlawful or unclear detentions, especially in cases where individuals claim to be acting under federal authority but refuse to identify themselves. Any law enforcement action taken within state borders with the intent to detain, apprehend, or remove a person would be required to be logged ahead of time with state or local authorities. That log would include the names of everyone involved, the agency they’re working for, the legal basis for the action, and where the person is being taken. As soon as the apprehension takes place, this information must be made available to the individual’s next of kin or legal counsel.
If someone in plainclothes tries to detain or remove a person without first showing proper ID, confirming their agency, and—if entering private property—presenting a judicial warrant, the state can treat that as a presumptively unlawful detention. In those cases, local or state police wouldn’t just be allowed to intervene—they’d be required to. Officers could immediately detain the acting party to verify their authority and begin an investigation into possible impersonation, unlawful detention, or attempted kidnapping.
To protect due process, the state could also require that anyone apprehended within its borders be held in a state- or locally-controlled facility for a minimum of 48 hours before they can be removed from the state. This holding period would ensure the individual has access to legal counsel, family notification, and judicial review. A habeas corpus case would be triggered automatically at the moment of apprehension, and no cooperation—by jails, databases, or officers—would be allowed until that legal review happens. Federal agents or others seeking custody would retain full access to the individual for interviews or legal process during that time, but not physical transfer.
The state could also make it a violation of the law for any state or local resources—whether personnel, facilities, data systems, or funding—to be used in violation of these protections. Any such use could trigger the immediate termination of cooperation with the agency or entity involved, including the withdrawal of all material support, personnel assistance, or access to state services. This wouldn't just be about accountability—it would be about drawing a clear line: if an outside actor refuses to respect the state's laws, they don’t get to use the state's tools.
To enforce this more directly, the state could define any removal from its territory in violation of these requirements as an act of kidnapping under state law—particularly where the removal occurs without proper identification, without a judicial warrant, or before the 48-hour review period is complete. While this would almost certainly provoke a legal challenge from the federal government under the Supremacy Clause, recent events have made it clear that secretive removals and plainclothes detentions pose real threats to public safety and civil rights. That challenge may be exactly what’s needed to draw new lines around how far federal power can go when it risks stripping people of basic constitutional protections.
If someone is removed from the state anyway, while a habeas case is pending, that could become grounds for legal counsel to demand their return and challenge the removal in court. It wouldn’t just be about immigration or federal power—it would be about protecting residents from disappearing into legal limbo, and ensuring that no one is taken from state soil without a real chance to be heard.
TY. And if it's exhausting, remember that all the major battles the US has ever engaged in were. We have to just keep putting one foot in front of the other & stick with it til the end.