Shoddy journalism. Let me try: Birthright citizenship is the biggest thing. Other stuff is blatantly illegal too, but granting this one gives Trump the authority to rewrite the constitution. There...
That post came the day after the justices heard oral arguments in a case related to Trump’s controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Shoddy journalism. Let me try:
Trump's blatantly illegal executive order trying to rescind a ratified constitutional amendment.
Birthright citizenship is the biggest thing. Other stuff is blatantly illegal too, but granting this one gives Trump the authority to rewrite the constitution.
There is no legitimate defense of this executive order. Anybody defending it should be tried for treason.
There is a well-defined process: 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by the 3/4 of the states. We've even repealed amendments before....that's why alcohol is legal right now.
This wishy-washy "we're trying to be unbiased" is utter bullshit when it is this freaking basic. A 3rd grader has sufficient brain capacity and reasoning skills to identify this executive order as illegal. It takes teams of highly educated lawyers months though, apparently.
In a sane world Congress would have immediately vetoed that executive order and then impeached the president the same day. With actual consequences.
... More directly on topic...its also bullshit how the Court keeps dancing around answering the actual problems. It's not unexpected given the current makeup of the court, but still.
I'm sorry, dude, but this is such a bad comment. Like, unbelievably bad logic. You argue people should be tried for treason for trying to change something that is in the Constitution without an...
Exemplary
Anybody defending it should be tried for treason.
There is a well-defined process: 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by the 3/4 of the states.
I'm sorry, dude, but this is such a bad comment. Like, unbelievably bad logic.
You argue people should be tried for treason for trying to change something that is in the Constitution without an amendment.
But treason is defined in the Constitution as "only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Furthermore, unrestricted birthright citizenship was established by a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment (US v. Wong Kim Ark.
So basically, you're saying that it's wrong for the Supreme Court to consider something that was settled by the Supreme Court because it's in the Constitution and we should violate the Constitution to punish anyone who violates the Constitution (which this only does because of a Supreme Court ruling).
If that last sentence doesn't make sense, that's the logic you used.
Look, I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment is pretty cut and dry. And I also believe that ruling that illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" would just give them diplomatic immunity, allowing them to do essentially anything they want.
But when you just say whatever shit pops into your head, it does not present a compelling argument, and it does not in any way support democracy. If you're going to try to support our laws and system of government, then what you say should be consistent with our laws and system of government.
Yea, late night rage edit. Although, in this particular case, I still think I'm right, but for the wrong reason. I'd bet money a large number of people involved with getting the birthright...
Yea, late night rage edit. Although, in this particular case, I still think I'm right, but for the wrong reason. I'd bet money a large number of people involved with getting the birthright citizenship revoked were also involved with Jan 6th. It's just, you know, investigations didn't really go anywhere.
Supreme Court to consider something that was settled by the Supreme Court because it's in the Constitution and we should violate the Constitution to punish anyone who violates the Constitution (which this only does because of a Supreme Court ruling).
Thinking about this more (before coffee), I'm not certain this couldn't be framed in a solid way. Something like "blatantly and explicitly using your position of power to defy the constitution." There is a far cry between "we find this thing you did ambiguously was in violation" and "you are obviously making a power grab against something that is explicitly spelled out."
Furthermore, unrestricted birthright citizenship was established by a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment
You could say that, but also a case where an average 3rd grader has the mental capacity to judge that correctly, given the wording:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like....the word All is first. They didn't say "All except when we don't like it." And given a fresh read, I've got all sorts of other thoughts springing up. Like, all those bad decisions which decided non-citizens don't have 4th Amendment rights.
Also relevant to overall vibe... this should have been brought up more on Jan 6th:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same
Every single politician confirmed to be involved should have been immediately removed.
Gosh I hate to even comment because doing so likely paints me as someone who agrees with Trump’s administration. There’s very little common ground between my views and theirs, but also I feel like...
Gosh I hate to even comment because doing so likely paints me as someone who agrees with Trump’s administration. There’s very little common ground between my views and theirs, but also I feel like your own quote of the constitution has deconstructed your own argument, so I feel I must comment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like....the word All is first. They didn't say "All except when we don't like it."
But you need to read beyond the first word, because there’s an important tenth word which links to a second clause.
Breaking it down, I read that quoted block like this;
All persons (condition A) or (condition B), and also (condition C), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (And then some rules about what you can or can’t do to citizens)
So yeah of course I can see why the Supreme Court would have needed to clarify, because the current administration is trying to argue that “this person does not meet condition C and therefore the rules about what we can or can’t do to citizens doesn’t apply”
Tell me, from your reading of the above, if a person does not meet condition C, are they a citizen? If they are, can you explain which bit of the above quoted constitution you’re interpreting differently to what I’ve laid out here? Or if they are not, can you show me what I’ve missed here that your interpretation and my interpretation diverge?
This was adjudicated previously and the Supreme Court weighed in. It's pretty unequivocally been decided that exemptions to "Condition C" only really applies to children born by an invading...
This was adjudicated previously and the Supreme Court weighed in. It's pretty unequivocally been decided that exemptions to "Condition C" only really applies to children born by an invading military and diplomats. (English common law is the standard) That's why the people who are here are subject to our laws even as visitors or undocumented immigrants. SCOTUS said it just means being required to follow the law.
Also, the supreme court is not currently ruling on this matter they're ruling on whether national injunctions of this matter are permissible (and possibly on any matter)
The focus of the scotus case about birthright citizenship is not the executive order itself. It's whether or not judges can impose nation-wide injunctions. In many ways, I think this is more...
The focus of the scotus case about birthright citizenship is not the executive order itself. It's whether or not judges can impose nation-wide injunctions. In many ways, I think this is more important than actually ruling on the birthright citizenship order itself, because I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court will uphold birthright citizenship, but I am not sure if they will rule that nation-wide injunctions are allowed. As mentioned in court, this would mean everyone would need a lawyer at all times to try to protect their civil rights.
That essentially means that we don't have rights.
It does seem like they are inclined to try to rule on the underlying executive order anyway, but I'm not sure about that. The court was not obvious in their opinions.
While true, a judge can declare something is unenforceable across the country now, if they won, it would only be on hold for the individual person suing. Meaning it likely wouldn't get appealed....
While true, a judge can declare something is unenforceable across the country now, if they won, it would only be on hold for the individual person suing. Meaning it likely wouldn't get appealed. Meaning it wouldn't get a final scotus ruling.
There's a difference in the level of lawyer you need if you individually have to get an injunction every time. Especially when the government isn't going to fuss about cost of lawyers...It's a matter of levels. For now they're still fighting in the courts, because the courts still matter. When they stop fighting it means they don't care, and scotus was very skeptical of the "we mostly usually sometimes follow court orders" response they got.
No matter how bad it is now, it would be worse if they win this point.
Shoddy journalism. Let me try:
Birthright citizenship is the biggest thing. Other stuff is blatantly illegal too, but granting this one gives Trump the authority to rewrite the constitution.
There is no legitimate defense of this executive order. Anybody defending it should be tried for treason.
There is a well-defined process: 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by the 3/4 of the states. We've even repealed amendments before....that's why alcohol is legal right now.
This wishy-washy "we're trying to be unbiased" is utter bullshit when it is this freaking basic. A 3rd grader has sufficient brain capacity and reasoning skills to identify this executive order as illegal. It takes teams of highly educated lawyers months though, apparently.
In a sane world Congress would have immediately vetoed that executive order and then impeached the president the same day. With actual consequences.
... More directly on topic...its also bullshit how the Court keeps dancing around answering the actual problems. It's not unexpected given the current makeup of the court, but still.
I'm sorry, dude, but this is such a bad comment. Like, unbelievably bad logic.
You argue people should be tried for treason for trying to change something that is in the Constitution without an amendment.
But treason is defined in the Constitution as "only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Furthermore, unrestricted birthright citizenship was established by a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment (US v. Wong Kim Ark.
So basically, you're saying that it's wrong for the Supreme Court to consider something that was settled by the Supreme Court because it's in the Constitution and we should violate the Constitution to punish anyone who violates the Constitution (which this only does because of a Supreme Court ruling).
If that last sentence doesn't make sense, that's the logic you used.
Look, I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment is pretty cut and dry. And I also believe that ruling that illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" would just give them diplomatic immunity, allowing them to do essentially anything they want.
But when you just say whatever shit pops into your head, it does not present a compelling argument, and it does not in any way support democracy. If you're going to try to support our laws and system of government, then what you say should be consistent with our laws and system of government.
Yea, late night rage edit. Although, in this particular case, I still think I'm right, but for the wrong reason. I'd bet money a large number of people involved with getting the birthright citizenship revoked were also involved with Jan 6th. It's just, you know, investigations didn't really go anywhere.
Thinking about this more (before coffee), I'm not certain this couldn't be framed in a solid way. Something like "blatantly and explicitly using your position of power to defy the constitution." There is a far cry between "we find this thing you did ambiguously was in violation" and "you are obviously making a power grab against something that is explicitly spelled out."
You could say that, but also a case where an average 3rd grader has the mental capacity to judge that correctly, given the wording:
Like....the word All is first. They didn't say "All except when we don't like it." And given a fresh read, I've got all sorts of other thoughts springing up. Like, all those bad decisions which decided non-citizens don't have 4th Amendment rights.
Also relevant to overall vibe... this should have been brought up more on Jan 6th:
Every single politician confirmed to be involved should have been immediately removed.
Gosh I hate to even comment because doing so likely paints me as someone who agrees with Trump’s administration. There’s very little common ground between my views and theirs, but also I feel like your own quote of the constitution has deconstructed your own argument, so I feel I must comment.
But you need to read beyond the first word, because there’s an important tenth word which links to a second clause.
Breaking it down, I read that quoted block like this;
So yeah of course I can see why the Supreme Court would have needed to clarify, because the current administration is trying to argue that “this person does not meet condition C and therefore the rules about what we can or can’t do to citizens doesn’t apply”
Tell me, from your reading of the above, if a person does not meet condition C, are they a citizen? If they are, can you explain which bit of the above quoted constitution you’re interpreting differently to what I’ve laid out here? Or if they are not, can you show me what I’ve missed here that your interpretation and my interpretation diverge?
This was adjudicated previously and the Supreme Court weighed in. It's pretty unequivocally been decided that exemptions to "Condition C" only really applies to children born by an invading military and diplomats. (English common law is the standard) That's why the people who are here are subject to our laws even as visitors or undocumented immigrants. SCOTUS said it just means being required to follow the law.
US vs Wong Kim Ark
Also, the supreme court is not currently ruling on this matter they're ruling on whether national injunctions of this matter are permissible (and possibly on any matter)
The focus of the scotus case about birthright citizenship is not the executive order itself. It's whether or not judges can impose nation-wide injunctions. In many ways, I think this is more important than actually ruling on the birthright citizenship order itself, because I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court will uphold birthright citizenship, but I am not sure if they will rule that nation-wide injunctions are allowed. As mentioned in court, this would mean everyone would need a lawyer at all times to try to protect their civil rights.
That essentially means that we don't have rights.
It does seem like they are inclined to try to rule on the underlying executive order anyway, but I'm not sure about that. The court was not obvious in their opinions.
I'd contend we already do. Not gonna get far fighting an illegal arrest without one.
While true, a judge can declare something is unenforceable across the country now, if they won, it would only be on hold for the individual person suing. Meaning it likely wouldn't get appealed. Meaning it wouldn't get a final scotus ruling.
There's a difference in the level of lawyer you need if you individually have to get an injunction every time. Especially when the government isn't going to fuss about cost of lawyers...It's a matter of levels. For now they're still fighting in the courts, because the courts still matter. When they stop fighting it means they don't care, and scotus was very skeptical of the "we mostly usually sometimes follow court orders" response they got.
No matter how bad it is now, it would be worse if they win this point.