Liberals really should arm themselves before these people finally classify "disagreeing with daddy" as a mental disorder. [0] It is obviously hilarious to think the "conservatives" and "2A enthusiasts" would possibly help defend lefties' right to bear arms at this point, as they've shown themselves to be utterly devoid of actual values. People across the political spectrum have an obscene amount of faith in "can't ha…
If you’re not armed yet, you’re already behind the curve. No one is going to protect you except you and potentially your sphere/community.
unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)
The President is literally taking away citizenship. What can be more fundamental than that?
[flagged]
Ironically the largest number of immigrants have been Latinos, who come from a fairly traditional and conservative culture. Ask any Mexican outside of the capital how they feel about abortion or trans women using women's bathrooms. These are not destined to be voters for the Democrats in the long term.
The most depressing thing COVID made clear is even in the "land of the free and home of the brave" people will just do what they're told by the authorities.
What if those people consider what they're being told by the authorities, understand that it makes sense, and choose to take that action because it's important for the public good? Why are people who prioritized public health during a temporary pandemic "sheep", but the President's supporters who demonstrate exceptionally cult-like behavior, "free thinking individuals"? You can't have it both ways.
> Why are people who prioritized public health during a temporary pandemic "sheep", but the President's supporters who demonstrate exceptionally cult-like behavior, "free thinking individuals"?
It's been enacted into law at least 3 times, for difference classes of people. 1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which covers everyone born here who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US. 2. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which extended it to Native Americans who were living under tribal sovereignty. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corre…
Well, okay, but none of this applies to the children of illegal immigrants.
Most illegal immigrants are not foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US.
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.
I mean they paid some $97 Billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022 [0], the country knows about them, and taxes them. They contribute so much to the economy Texas refuses to have business verify worker's work status for fear of the economic impact it would have.
> 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. Yes. It's in the constitution. Says it right there. Please explain how all our eyes deceive us.
You're relying on a 21st century layman's interpretation of legal language written in the 19th century. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, in broad strokes, people who are here legally.
> It seems like "nobody has the votes to make big changes" should be an indicator that not making big changes is the proper result. "Nobody has the votes" seems like a weird way to put it, because is implies that everyone wants to make changes, they just can't agree which changes to make. On the contrary, I think the issue is that most congresspeople do not want to make changes. Changes are scary. If your name is ass…
> "Nobody has the votes" seems like a weird way to put it, because is implies that everyone wants to make changes, they just can't agree which changes to make. On the contrary, I think the issue is that most congresspeople do not want to make changes. Changes are scary. If your name is associated with a change, and that change becomes unpopular, it might threaten your reelection! The split in Congress is driven by th…
I disagree. The trouble with your explanation is that there are plenty of issues which have had clear broad bipartisan support for decades. This is mostly stuff that doesn't even come up in mainstream political discourse and isn't even clearly associated with a particular party. It's basic stuff like consumer protection (e.g. predatory loans, telemarketing), government integrity (e.g. lobbying, term limits), and more.
Justice Jackson's dissent is honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've read from the Court and I've been reading most every opinion for years now. Heavy on the pathos, completely devoid of cogent legal theory. Kinda reminds me of Breyer, who, charitably, had an esoteric style. Kavanaugh is good to read on any topic - his writing is clear and often easily understandable by the layman. Gorsuch is an excellent w…
They're both excellent judges in non-ideological cases, and many of Sotomayor's majority judgements read well and she's clearly very on-the-ball in orals. It's a shame in these cases -- I think Sotomayor is more of an ideologue than Thomas.