She wouldn’t even have grounds to write an opinion on it. It’s the constitution. It would immediately get scrapped. SCROTUS can’t even say anything about it.
They are there to interpret the law. The plan isn’t to remove or challenge it, but to change its meaning into however they want. There is no -lawful- means of removing them from power.
Again the constitution isn’t law, but laws are required to adhere to as close to the constitution as possible, and those changes cannot be made by Judges
They literally can. I don’t know if you’re just ignorant, but the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and decide what it “really” means. If they decide that the 14th only applies to people exclusively under US jurisdiction (like they’ve indicated is the plan) then that’s the way it is. It doesn’t matter how shitty or blatantly wrong their argument is. It only matters what they decide, and whatever they decide becomes de jure fact. There’s no legal method to counter it.
If you’re holding out hope that Congress would impeach and remove any Supreme Court Justice, let alone all the ones who need removing, I have a bridge to sell you.
Sadly SCOTUS has some wiggle room here. They get to interpret what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. If a majority view that the parents having no legal standing to be on US soil and that somehow means they aren’t considered to meet that criteria… Well there they go
I do think the portion targeting people with Visas and such couldn’t even possibly stand.
It excludes far more than diplomats, and that’s what makes this approach so dangerous.
In a “Red Dawn” situation, local police certainly can arrest members of the invading army. “Enemy Combatants” are not subject to the laws of the United States. Enemy combatants cannot be charged with crimes under US law simply for engaging in hostilities. They can be held indefinitely as POWs. They don’t have to involve the judicial system to “repatriate” them to their country of origin, rather than deporting them.
Invading enemy soldiers are not born in the United States. That’s the other important part of the sentence. I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers. To be clear, what I meant is that if you have embassy staff with diplomatic immunity and they have kids while in the US, those children do not get birthright citizenship, because as children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
They think lots of stupid illogical things. But here in the real world, immigrants are not soldiers, and they’re not ever treated as soldiers by the legal system, so they are, in fact under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Yet another case of Shroedinger’s immigrants. They are simultaneously fleeing their “s***hole” home country for purely economic reasons (not political oppression) while being so loyal to their home country that they will spend their entire lives raising children in a country they are invading.
Note that there were SCOTUS justices that already did this in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.
While the majority at that time did not hold it, we know this SCOTUS has no particular regard for precedence.
That would hold either, because it would mean that ANY visitor, legal or not, is not subject to any federal laws at all. Not just constitutional…ANY. If that’s their aim, then free for all on Trump and his team.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
She wouldn’t even have grounds to write an opinion on it. It’s the constitution. It would immediately get scrapped. SCROTUS can’t even say anything about it.
You’re more optomistic than I am.
If SCOTUS attempts to change the constitution, without the required support of congress, then it gives the ok for the American people to remove them.
Technically they haven’t done anything illegal yet
They are there to interpret the law. The plan isn’t to remove or challenge it, but to change its meaning into however they want. There is no -lawful- means of removing them from power.
Again the constitution isn’t law, but laws are required to adhere to as close to the constitution as possible, and those changes cannot be made by Judges
They literally can. I don’t know if you’re just ignorant, but the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and decide what it “really” means. If they decide that the 14th only applies to people exclusively under US jurisdiction (like they’ve indicated is the plan) then that’s the way it is. It doesn’t matter how shitty or blatantly wrong their argument is. It only matters what they decide, and whatever they decide becomes de jure fact. There’s no legal method to counter it.
By what method?
In theory a twelve gauge and a dream.
In practice a civil war which would kill millions and most likely dissolution or heavily decentralize the federal government.
The constitution covers that too
If you’re holding out hope that Congress would impeach and remove any Supreme Court Justice, let alone all the ones who need removing, I have a bridge to sell you.
Sadly SCOTUS has some wiggle room here. They get to interpret what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. If a majority view that the parents having no legal standing to be on US soil and that somehow means they aren’t considered to meet that criteria… Well there they go
I do think the portion targeting people with Visas and such couldn’t even possibly stand.
If they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they can’t arrest them. That language is clearly meant to exclude diplomats.
It excludes far more than diplomats, and that’s what makes this approach so dangerous.
In a “Red Dawn” situation, local police certainly can arrest members of the invading army. “Enemy Combatants” are not subject to the laws of the United States. Enemy combatants cannot be charged with crimes under US law simply for engaging in hostilities. They can be held indefinitely as POWs. They don’t have to involve the judicial system to “repatriate” them to their country of origin, rather than deporting them.
Invading enemy soldiers are not born in the United States. That’s the other important part of the sentence. I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers. To be clear, what I meant is that if you have embassy staff with diplomatic immunity and they have kids while in the US, those children do not get birthright citizenship, because as children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That’s because you’re using a logical, rational definition of “soldier”. Texas isn’t, and neither is Trump.
They are treating immigration as an actual invasion. They are saying that “soldiers” are coming in to the US and having kids.
They haven’t been quiet about what they are doing, but so far, we have been treating it as hyperbole. It isn’t hyperbole. They are acting on it.
They think lots of stupid illogical things. But here in the real world, immigrants are not soldiers, and they’re not ever treated as soldiers by the legal system, so they are, in fact under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Yet another case of Shroedinger’s immigrants. They are simultaneously fleeing their “s***hole” home country for purely economic reasons (not political oppression) while being so loyal to their home country that they will spend their entire lives raising children in a country they are invading.
Have you been living in a hole or something?
Confirm to me that you are aware of Trump’s attacks on “birthright citizenship”.
Note that there were SCOTUS justices that already did this in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.
While the majority at that time did not hold it, we know this SCOTUS has no particular regard for precedence.
That would hold either, because it would mean that ANY visitor, legal or not, is not subject to any federal laws at all. Not just constitutional…ANY. If that’s their aim, then free for all on Trump and his team.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
Never heard of this one. Link?