Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#421

Post by vel0city »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #380
Windchaser wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally happy to welcome anyone who's willing to come, work hard, pay taxes, and support democratic ideals. This is how most of our ancestors got here, and it seems fair to me that we continue to extend that offer to other would-be immigrants. Worth noting that the economic literature also shows that this is firmly in our best interests, and immigrants and their children more than pay their way in future taxes…

"Broken borders" is an oxymoron. Something we cannot tolerate. Borders, by their nature, are our definition as a nation and our protection as a country. Broken borders do not exist. We cannot tolerate them. Strong border control must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration reform. It's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe, and our borders are one of our early li…

> it's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe

So if it's the main goal to keep people safe, we need to ban unhealthy foods and massively restrict the operation of automobiles. We need to massively increase regulations on air and water pollution. These things will do far more to save American lives than any number of foreigners we lock up in prisons.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#422

Post by Arodex »

atonse wrote: post #226
paxys wrote: post #24

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.

It is totally obvious: every single court told the Trump administration to go f* themselves, and Trump appealed and appealed again until it reached the Supreme Court.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#423

Post by archagon »

mothballed wrote: post #405
FireBeyond wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So biological weapons are back on the cards then? As armaments doesn't mean "firearms" but "weapons of war".

[flagged]

“Immigrant women are biological weapons”

“Why are people censoring me for my opinions??? Cancel culture etc.”

Barf.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#424

Post by mothballed »

archagon wrote: post #201
mothballed wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a plain-text explanation as to why a well-regulated militia can be infringed from having a 1987 select fire infantry rifle but not a 1985 one, both of which are probably the most bread and butter arms you could possibly consider as part of a well-regulated militia. (This despite the plain-text ascribes the right to "people" not the militia, and in any case US code defines virtually every able bodied citizen m…

Sure, one could make the argument that "shall not be infringed" is pretty cut-and-dry. I'm just not sure how one could make that argument while at the same time yadda-yaddaing the militia part, which is often what actually happens. Anyway, I'm not sure I have a disagreement with your original point. It just seemed a bit funny to use the second amendment as an example of a thing that (supposedly) has unambiguous meani…

Congress defines most every able body male as part of the unorganized militia and there is no public armory for them to store their arms (this only available to organized militia) at or use leaving only a private armory (consistent with historical at time of founding where private persons stored their militia weapon at home), so I'm not sure it makes much difference in practice whether the right ascribed to the people be connected to being a militia servicemember or not for the purposes of the example of owning a select fire infantry weapon.

Probably the main effect is to grant women and the more elderly the right to bear arms as well.

===== re: below due to throttling =======

>Congress defines… historical precedent… but we were talking about a plain-text reading of the Constitution.

That makes it easy then.

The plain text ascribes the right to the people not the militia so it's moot whether they're in the militia or not in such case to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#425

Post by anamax »

ceejayoz wrote: post #285
deep_concern wrote: post #280

If you shift from being a living constitutionalist to a strict textualist based on the case in question, then what you really are is a machiavellian.

Kavanaugh's dissent is kinda hilarious in this context. > The original constitutional principles do not change absent a constitutional amendment, but the relevant principles— both the rules and exceptions alike—must be faithfully applied not only to circumstances as they existed in 1787, 1791, and 1868, for example, but also to modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers. This,…

Radio, TV, cameras

That said, breech loaders were used by the British during the Revolutionary War (the Ferguson Rifle) and multiple shots from a single barrel using multiple "touch holes" was well known.

And then there's Puckle's gun.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#426

Post by solid_fuel »

rayiner wrote: post #420
solid_fuel wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the conservative opinions in this case aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. Every single court that saw this case decided the same way: birthright citizenship was intended to work exactly as it has been applied since its inception.

[flagged]

The precedent was correctly decided, as affirmed in this decision. They left the precedent stand, since it was never up for debate for any serious legal scholars. Thus, the supreme court never needed to take up this case.

The only people entertaining a challenge to the previous decision are those who wish to ethnically cleanse the United States.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#427

Post by goatlover »

rayiner wrote: post #364
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite argument (presented by a constitutional scholar) against originalism is that a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century white men disenfranchises every person who is not a wealthy, landed 18th century white man, roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with such a person. Edit: the scholar is Kate Shaw. She presents her arguments a lot more coherently tha…

We have no concept of free speech, due process, or individual rights in Asia where I’m from. Where I’m from, if the community doesn’t like you, we can just drive you out of the community. Am I “disenfranchised” by having to live in a liberal democracy created by white men?

Those rights came to exist in the west in response to kings and tyrants doing whatever they wanted at the expense of their subjects. Also because communities sometimes do bad things to people not able to simply drive away. Pretty sure Asia has had it's share of human rights abuses.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#428

Post by archagon »

mothballed wrote: post #424
archagon wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, one could make the argument that "shall not be infringed" is pretty cut-and-dry. I'm just not sure how one could make that argument while at the same time yadda-yaddaing the militia part, which is often what actually happens. Anyway, I'm not sure I have a disagreement with your original point. It just seemed a bit funny to use the second amendment as an example of a thing that (supposedly) has unambiguous meani…

Congress defines most every able body male as part of the unorganized militia and there is no public armory for them to store their arms (this only available to organized militia) at or use leaving only a private armory (consistent with historical at time of founding where private persons stored their militia weapon at home), so I'm not sure it makes much difference in practice whether the right ascribed to the peopl…

Congress defines… historical precedent… but we were talking about a plain-text reading of the Constitution.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#429

Post by Supermancho »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #349
solid_fuel wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> I did say what I mean explicitly.

> it comes out sideways in other dimensions

> current moral programming

Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model.

People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#430

Post by cucumber3732842 »

qingcharles wrote: post #326
ceejayoz wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kavanaugh's dissent is kinda hilarious in this context. > The original constitutional principles do not change absent a constitutional amendment, but the relevant principles— both the rules and exceptions alike—must be faithfully applied not only to circumstances as they existed in 1787, 1791, and 1868, for example, but also to modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers. This,…

I've laughed ever since United States v. Jones (2012), the GPS tracker-stuck-to-vehicle case. The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791. This prompted the famous hypothetical of an officer secretly squeezing into the trunk of a horse-drawn carriage to track someone's movements over several days. The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever…

>The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791.

Redcoats in your home, comparing notes with all the other redcoats who live in your buddies house and hassle your bartender, watch the comings and goings of everyone else around town, etc, etc.

Post reply on HN