1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidOf course not, this SC is corrupt.
But you had no problem with biden continuing on with loan forgiveness when scotus ruled against it did you?
hypocrite
Are you saying Trump should ignore his own hand-picked SC?
@no1marauder saidDidn't take long:https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle/index.html
A decision of the SCOTUS on a specific issue is "settled". IF Trump actually did put that provision in an Executive Order and tries to enforce it, the first Federal Judge it gets in front of will issue an injunction stopping it.
@no1marauder saidgoing as planned...dont go shooting off just yet
Didn't take long:https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle/index.html
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWell, if it's possibility 2 i.e. he knows it's going down in the courts and just wants to keep gullible fools like yourself happy, maybe that's true.
going as planned...dont go shooting off just yet
But if he really thinks it has any chance of surviving judicial review, the EO being declared "blatantly unconstitutional" by the first federal judge to rule on it (a mere three days after its issuance) isn't a good sign for that "plan".
@no1marauder saidgullible fools thought RvW couldnt be overturned
Well, if it's possibility 2 i.e. he knows it's going down in the courts and just wants to keep gullible fools like yourself happy, maybe that's true.
But if he really thinks it has any chance of surviving judicial review, the EO being declared "blatantly unconstitutional" by the first federal judge to rule on it (a mere three days after its issuance) isn't a good sign for that "plan".
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI don't think anybody thought that esp. after the Court was stacked with Republican appointees.
gullible fools thought RvW couldnt be overturned
But guess who appointed the Federal judge who just ruled Trump's EO "blatantly unconstitutional"?:
"Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order that blocked Trump's order from being enforcement nationwide for 14 days while he weighs whether to issue a preliminary injunction."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/us-judge-blocks-trump-s-order-curtailing-birthright-citizenship/ar-AA1xK8tT?ocid=BingNewsSerp
@no1marauder saidI agree with the judge, he is ruling on scotus decision on the 14th...that is what is in error
I don't think anybody thought that esp. after the Court was stacked with Republican appointees.
But guess who appointed the Federal judge who just ruled Trump's EO "blatantly unconstitutional"?:
"Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order that blocked Trump's order from being enforcement nationw ...[text shortened]... rnment/us-judge-blocks-trump-s-order-curtailing-birthright-citizenship/ar-AA1xK8tT?ocid=BingNewsSerp
@no1marauder saidDont get too excited. Europeans were able to move away from the jus soli principle of birthright. Jus soli is a dangerous principle to keep in the constitution, as it gives the evil elements and dregs of societies around the world the right to infiltrate a country. A hundred years ago this would not have been an issue. In Europe, laws were changed so that there is no automatic citizenship for those born to illegal parents.
I don't think anybody thought that esp. after the Court was stacked with Republican appointees.
But guess who appointed the Federal judge who just ruled Trump's EO "blatantly unconstitutional"?:
"Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order that blocked Trump's order from being enforcement nationw ...[text shortened]... rnment/us-judge-blocks-trump-s-order-curtailing-birthright-citizenship/ar-AA1xK8tT?ocid=BingNewsSerp
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidit will be clarified by scotus
Dont get too excited. Europeans were able to move away from the jus soli principle of birthright. Jus soli is a dangerous principle to keep in the constitution, as it gives the evil elements and dregs of societies around the world the right to infiltrate a country. A hundred years ago this would not have been an issue. In Europe, laws were changed so that there is no automatic citizenship for those born to illegal parents.
illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the US, they are under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came. They owe no allegience to the US.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIt's already been clarified by the SCOTUS 126 years ago. Persons born here are under the jurisdiction of the US and have to obey its laws. None of the exceptions understood at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment apply; these are not the children of diplomats or of an invading army:
it will be clarified by scotus
illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the US, they are under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came. They owe no allegience to the US.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
"independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ at pp. 693-94
@no1marauder saidso you are reduced to allowing google to talk for you mister lawyer?😂
It's already been clarified by the SCOTUS 126 years ago. Persons born here are under the jurisdiction of the US and have to obey its laws. None of the exceptions understood at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment apply; these are not the children of diplomats or of an invading army:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these ...[text shortened]... y some treaty stipulations."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ at pp. 693-94
@Mott-The-Hoople saidGoogle? That's the SCOTUS decision, you pathetic idiot.
so you are reduced to allowing google to talk for you mister lawyer?😂
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThere were no slaves when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
we are not under commin law or King rule…the declaration on independence did away with that
“subject to jurisdiction of” was to differentiate between slaves and indians ( native Americans)
The case of Indians was discussed by Justice Gray.
Somehow, I doubt the SCOTUS will be impressed by the rantings of right wing internet posters over a well-reasoned venerable decision which is based on original intent and undisputed history.