481–490 of 681 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They took this case so they can appear to be reasonable while doing wild stuff in other cases.
Exactly. Notice the ruling after ruling from the Supreme court strengthening the power of corporations and moneyed interests.
Thank God. If only because this would open up people born here to having their citizenship retroactively revoked. The constitution is pretty clear. If you don't like it amend it. If anything we need to expand it to include anyone who gives birth in this country. If you're willing to deal with our horrible maternity care system and help keep up our declining population, you deserve a blue passport.
The birth rate correlates inversely with female earnings growth and correspondingly with male earnings growth; or, more to the point, declining birth rates correlates with the advancement of feminism (including birth rates approaching and then reaching zero.) This is an observation and not a judgement. Take what you will with this information.
Why bring it up at all if you're not trying to say anything?
Birth rate correlates with home ownership rate for people aged 25-34. Wonder why that's been going down despite household earnings growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Or the birth, as it were? Not always. The people of American Samoa do not have birthright citizenship in the United States. They are clearly under the jurisdiction of the US.
"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." They are not born/naturalized in the United States, but one of its territories. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is satisfied, but the other part is not. (We can grant citizenship to territories by statute, like Puerto Rico, but the Constitution does not…
They are clearly born in the United States, the territories are part of the United States. The United States is the sovereign state of American Samoa.
The point you're making is exactly the point I was making. We define by statue and court precedent which territories are magically included in this. American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019: https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-american-...
All it may take is for congress to pass a change to 8 U.S. Code § 1401 to deny birthright citizenship to illegal aliens. Trump's EO ran afoul of this according to the dissent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the only "proper approach" and what approach is proper is a hotly contested question. But it doesn't even matter, because in this case it is very clear what the drafters intended.
It’s not seriously contested anymore. Originalism won and now we are just fighting about how to apply it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the right to bear arms extend to stuff like MANPADS, tanks and fighter aircraft?
It ought to. If you can afford either of those you have enough invested in the system that you probably won't use it lightly and if you don't you should and that's kind of the system's problem.
That's why Elon Musk is both the richest man in modern history and also the most upright, caring, and self-restrained one too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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." They are not born/naturalized in the United States, but one of its territories. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is satisfied, but the other part is not. (We can grant citizenship to territories by statute, like Puerto Rico, but the Constitution does not…
>They are not born/naturalized in the United States They are clearly born in the United States , the territories are part of the United States. The United States is the sovereign state of American Samoa. The point you're making is exactly the point I was making. We define by statue and court precedent which territories are magically included in this. American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and…
> American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019…
No, it wasn't. That case was overturned on appeal. It remains under US jurisdiction; its people remain nationals, not citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitisemanu_v._United_States
> The United States appealed and in a 2–1 decision the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court decision with Judge Bacharach dissenting. The court cited one of the Insular Cases, Downes v. Bidwell, as a Supreme Court Precedent not to affirm the lower court's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied an en banc hearing, over the dissent of Judges Bacharach and Moritz.
> A petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the United States Supreme Court on April 27 and was discussed in their conference on October 14, 2022 and decided to deny certiorari on October 17, 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell
> The decision narrowly held that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress has jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for US states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature? Given that this isn't an issue in any other modern democracy, I'd say "bug."
The slow pace of change is a feature , not a bug. It's fine to wait decades or centuries until we have broad consensus before making amendments. While this might seem maddeningly frustrating or unjust in the short term, in the long term it makes our republic more stable. The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same?
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…
Following the implications of this argument leads to some pretty hairy places. If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? Or perhaps the argument implies that people like that constitutional scholar have reached a state of purely detached enlightenment, and thus are exempt from this logic?