Buttermaker Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 11:22 AM, modestobulldog said: I think it is an anachronism that needs to go away. Not sure if serious
thelawlorfaithful Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 3:42 PM, Sactowndog said: They would They would have to really stretch to interpret this any other way 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. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof Alien immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. having come here legally. Those that have non-immigrant visa’s that give birth in the US are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the US by obtaining it. But can somebody who breaks the law to get into the United States be considered under its jurisdiction? That’s where the fulcrum of the arguments will be. 1
InnZoneU Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 4:32 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof Alien immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. having come here legally. Those that have non-immigrant visa’s that give birth in the US are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the US by obtaining it. But can somebody who breaks the law to get into the United States be considered under its jurisdiction? That’s where the fulcrum of the arguments will be. So you're for deporting Elmo? We finally are in agreement!
azgreg Posted November 10 Author Posted November 10 The term subject to the jurisdiction of refers to everyone inside the United States that isn't here on diplomatic mission. 1
SalinasSpartan Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 5:21 PM, azgreg said: The term subject to the jurisdiction of refers to everyone inside the United States that isn't here on diplomatic mission. It means whatever SCOTUS says it does.
azgreg Posted November 10 Author Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 5:39 PM, SalinasSpartan said: It means whatever SCOTUS says it does. Well, up until now that's what they've said. I can't imagine a way to twist it to get any other meaning.
SalinasSpartan Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 5:40 PM, azgreg said: Well, up until now that's what they've said. I can't imagine a way to twist it to get any other meaning. I’m not saying they are going to do anything. But, they definitely could. And what the fuck is anybody going to do about it if they do? Nothing.
sjsbuff Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 5:47 PM, SalinasSpartan said: I’m not saying they are going to do anything. But, they definitely could. And what the fuck is anybody going to do about it if they do? Nothing. Asking the Russkies about their poisoning techniques (for Thomas and Alito) might be a start...
Sactowndog Posted November 10 Posted November 10 On 11/9/2024 at 4:32 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof Alien immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. having come here legally. Those that have non-immigrant visa’s that give birth in the US are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the US by obtaining it. But can somebody who breaks the law to get into the United States be considered under its jurisdiction? That’s where the fulcrum of the arguments will be. The child born here hasn’t broken the law. We stopped making kids responsible for the crimes of their parents some years ago. now Alioto and Thomas are both jokes and Cannon as a Supreme Court Justice would be a permanent stain on the court. So who knows. 2
mysfit Posted November 12 Posted November 12 Middle school was a long time ago but from the cob webbed recesses I recall changes to amendments require approval by 2/3 of the states. It's not a congressional approval but by the states and good luck getting that. So no, birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere no matter how much of a hard on the orange shit gibbon has for it. Unless he's pronounced King and then of course all bets are off. 1
thehowlin Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/8/2024 at 8:26 PM, azgreg said: Looks like it's on the table. Of course it is!
thehowlin Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/11/2024 at 8:09 PM, mysfit said: Middle school was a long time ago but from the cob webbed recesses I recall changes to amendments require approval by 2/3 of the states. It's not a congressional approval but by the states and good luck getting that. So no, birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere no matter how much of a hard on the orange shit gibbon has for it. Unless he's pronounced King and then of course all bets are off. Project 2025 has made it clear they will move forward with any policy they want, regardless of Constitutionality, then fight it out in the courts and hope to keep the policy in place while the courts fight it out. 1
happycamper Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/9/2024 at 7:32 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof Alien immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. having come here legally. Those that have non-immigrant visa’s that give birth in the US are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the US by obtaining it. But can somebody who breaks the law to get into the United States be considered under its jurisdiction? That’s where the fulcrum of the arguments will be. fetuses can break the law now? also by definition, if someone has "broken the law to get into the united states", they are under its jurisdiction. otherwise they would not have broken the law 2
Spaztecs Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/8/2024 at 6:26 PM, azgreg said: Looks like it's on the table. On 11/9/2024 at 4:42 PM, Sactowndog said: They would They would have to really stretch to interpret this any other way 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. It's going to require a Constitutional Amendment which will never happen. But, at least they get to keep a talking point going.
Spaztecs Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/9/2024 at 2:10 PM, aztech said: So they say. I guess we'll see after Jan 20th. Did you skip High School Civic class ? It takes a Constitutional Amendment to amend or remove an Amendment. See the 18th and 21st Amendments. The 18th prohibited Alcohol consumption. The 21st repealed it. It takes 2/3 of both Houses to send an Amendmwnt to the States for ratification, then 3/4 of the States to ratify it. With our current political polarization that will never happen. Under any circumstances. 3
clpp01 Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/8/2024 at 7:23 PM, Sactowndog said: How do they expect to change the constitution? Never happening unless they appoint SCOTUS judges like Aileen Canon and I doubt she gets past Lisa Murkowski. More just ignoring the constitution then trying to change it. If the Supreme Court decided they wanted to issue a ruling like that does anyone believe that MAGA controlled congress would step in and stop them? 1
clpp01 Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/8/2024 at 7:23 PM, Sactowndog said: How do they expect to change the constitution? Never happening unless they appoint SCOTUS judges like Aileen Canon and I doubt she gets past Lisa Murkowski. More just ignoring the constitution then trying to change it. If the Supreme Court decided they wanted to issue a ruling like that does anyone believe that MAGA controlled congress would step in and stop them?
Akkula Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/12/2024 at 12:27 PM, clpp01 said: More just ignoring the constitution then trying to change it. If the Supreme Court decided they wanted to issue a ruling like that does anyone believe that MAGA controlled congress would step in and stop them? Well you may be right. Trump is just going to adjourn congress and fill the judiciary using recess appointments with a bunch of Aileen Cannons. He may just never call them back into session. Since he has absolute immunity he can do whatever he wants during such an "emergency." He can have judges he doesn't like arrested by his DOJ and he can select new ones. He will get a friendly judiciary just like Maduro. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/trump-threatens-to-adjourn-congress-so-he-can-make-recess-appointments.html 2 1
thelawlorfaithful Posted November 12 Posted November 12 On 11/12/2024 at 9:01 AM, happycamper said: fetuses can break the law now? also by definition, if someone has "broken the law to get into the united states", they are under its jurisdiction. otherwise they would not have broken the law I didn’t say I agreed with it. I pointed out where the arguments would hinge.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now