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

US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 878 posts

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#261

Post by Jensson »

EasyMark wrote: post #245
indil wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. 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." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia

If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#262

Post by ejstronge »

indil wrote: post #219
acoustics wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. 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." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side

This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain).

A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable.

This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television.

Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas...

I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#263

Post by peddling-brink »

ljsprague wrote: post #237
scarface_74 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President is literally taking away citizenship. What can be more fundamental than that?

[flagged]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#264

Post by EasyMark »

shams93 wrote: post #131
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

There is also the damage done by the Supreme Court ending the Voting Rights Act, had the act been in place in 2024, Kamalah would have won by a landslide. Millions of minority voters were targeted for disenfranchisement in 2024.

between that one and citizen's united the GOP takeover was assured.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#265

Post by ceejayoz »

xienze wrote: post #246
ceejayoz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution . It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.

The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of th…

> Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen.

This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend.

Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around.

We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#266

Post by bamboozled »

15155 wrote: post #5
cmurf wrote: post #2

There's no legal reasoning. If there's a D president again, this gets reversed early on. Nationwide injunctions were saught and used by (self-proclaimed) conservatives to slow down and stop Biden immigration policies.

> this gets reversed early on. Through what legal avenue?

That’s true, they have no power of the Supreme Court like the Rs do…oops

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#267

Post by Salgat »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

This had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.

Mind you this simply meant that, if important enough to temporarily block, an appeal would be needed to ensure that what the President was doing was legal, which is entirely reasonable. This was simply an extra legal check on the president to keep the president inline with the law.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#268

Post by wizzwizz4 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #222
indil wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. 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." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

> Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make… I suspect, if they commit a crime or overstay their visa, we'll suddenly decide we have a little jurisdiction after all.

That clause is about foreign ambassadors and such, not tourists.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#269

Post by peddling-brink »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #65

Federal judges' can't block EOs indefinitely. The WH can appeal to a circuit court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. But it does prevent the Admin from implementing an unconstitutional EO while they wait to be challenged in all states/districts. I'm not particularly happy about nationwide injunctions, but this is much worse if you have a president who is not shy to "break the law now and fight it in court later". A…

This is up there with Citizens United. This road is dark.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#270

Post by xienze »

ceejayoz wrote: post #265
xienze wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of th…

> Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would th…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN