A. You're either worried your welfare checks will go down or B. you won't get your job back mowing lawns. (possibly C. both)
"Blatantly unconstitutional"
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
Well, I think the treaties keep diplomats from simply disappearing if they misbehave. But I agree, I think simply being present inside borders gives some measure of jurisdiction over an individual, whether there are additional protections by reason of a treaty or whatever.
Point being, it seems ridiculous to me to argue that anyone within our borders is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in some form or fashion.
I haven’t read the government’s brief so maybe I am misunderstanding their argument.
The framers on the Senate Judiciary Committee addressed the Indian issue almost immediately after ratification.
Tribal Indians weren’t subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not citizens. Straggling Indians (ones who lived in non-Indian territory and paid taxes) were subject and were citizens.
Too bad this coward has me on ignore. Imagine how fvcking weak minded a troll must be to put his audience on ignore. ROTFL.
Takeaway: Either we all ignore him, or everyone attacks him. Both clearly work with this cotton-soft clown.
Last edited:
You know people you have on ignore are calling you a whiny pussy?
Alex Ovechkin's children can be arrested if they break the law, including for committing treason against the United States. A Russian diplomat's kids cannot. That is a pretty big difference.
Agreed as to the basic point. But per my edit to earlier post - i do think we are both reading that reference to jurisdiction in our current exchange with a little bit of a 20th/21st century authority-focused gloss. Which again is perfectly reasonable and probably compelling, but it doesn't necessarily preclude thinking about it with the more 19th century gloss.
true as to outcome, but unclear why that makes any relative sense from a citizenship perspective, when you think about why the ambassador's kids are exempt.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
And if enough people agree, an amendment can be passed. That’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work and I’m all for it - draft the legislation and let our elected reps and then the states decide as allowed for in the Constitution.
Trying to abolish a constitutional right via executive fiat is an absurd overreach and is being justly laughed out of court.
Alex Ovechkin pays taxes. Any children he has are also required to pay taxes.
This is where I am.
Birthright citizenship is a bad policy and should be changed, but it should take a Constitutional Amendment to do it.
Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to me that a prerequisite to be granted citizenship is that you must be subject to the laws of the country. I guess I don't understand how that doesn't make sense.
Sure seems like this is what we'll get out of the rapist the next four years. One stupid EO after another. Some blocked. Some not. But none actually help make stuff affordable.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
Eggs are at an all-time high price and are predicted to rise to $5 a dozen by the end of the year:
I don't doubt that they are , but i guess what i'm struggling with is whether merely being subject to teh laws is the test. For example, people who are clearly noncitizens are subject to our laws while present here.
In cheerier news, per Mrs. A who follows these sorts of things, Trump has declassified additional parts of the JFK and MLK assassination files.
Shocked...leftie Seattle judge rules against...irreverent...it's going to the Supreme Court and is a 50/50 tossup....
Its clearly one part of the test, but it is not the entire test. Illegals here in the country may be subject to our laws, but weren't born here. Its a multi-part qualification. Seems pretty straightforward to me. You may not agree with it, but the way it is drafted is pretty simple to me. You seem to be conflated two prongs of a test and trying to figure out a way to find one, single motivation for the two clearly different prongs.
Activist Judge will soon get his ass handed to him.Judge has already let the air out of the dipshit's first executive order, lol.
Live Updates: Trump’s Effort to Restrict Birthright Citizenship ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional,’ Judge Says
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship to babies born on American soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and reverse decades of precedent.
In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that sued. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.
“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
Mr. Trump’s order, issued in the opening hours of his presidency, declared that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order also extended to babies of mothers who were in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers.
In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits to halt the so-called order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent has long interpreted the amendment — that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — applies to every baby born in the United States, with few exceptions.
In the case before Judge Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, the state attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona had argued that Mr. Trump’s order would deny rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born each year and leave some of them stateless. States would also lose federal funding for various assistance programs.
In their briefs, the states cite testimony from then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. In 1995, Mr. Dellinger told Congress that a law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and that even a constitutional amendment would “flatly contradict the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”
Federal government lawyers argued in the hearing that they should have the opportunity to provide a more complete briefing to the court because the executive order would not take effect until next month. The states responded that the administration’s order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs, and that births of new babies would have a cloud over them.
Judge Coughenour emphatically agreed with the states: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
A separate federal lawsuit filed by 18 other states and two cities is being considered in Massachusetts.
Show less
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
Guy is a Reagan appointee you collossal dumbass.
Yes it is. Anyone sit and think of all the possibilities of citizenships. This was done on purpose and you idiot lefties can’t even see it for what it is, which is par for the course.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
All those “leftist” judges he appointed are just wreaking havoc 🙄
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
It took Trump only hours to break the oath he took on Monday to protect and defend the constitution with his absurd executive order to nullify birth-right citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment.
POTUS does not have the authority to unilaterally change the Constitution. Those of you advocating that he can, should move to Russia.
Oath of Enlistment
"I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."Oath of Office
"I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."Trump:
So trump supporters wouldnt understand?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,854
- 207,040
- 113
Saw a comment - forget which social media platform it was - from a guy whose occupation he listed as "independent carpenter" telling an oceanographer with a PhD from U.C.L.A. that he was full of shit for saying sea levels were rising because "I have lived by the ocean for 25 years and it's in the same place it's always been."
You can't make this shit up. 😑
The oligarchs only benefit from a more dumb population. That is what this comes down to.
When I say read a book.....it doesn't have to be something you agree with. I'm re-reading Kissinger's book "Diplomacy". Kissinger was not exactly a liberal (for those of your who don't know he was, read a book). I like reading all points of view as long it is not a bunch of lies.
