Adams is confronted with this Dershowitz tweet:
Any child born to undocumented immigrants who remains in the country is a constitutional citizen. Only question is whether a child born to a tourist who is then removed and never returns is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.What's interesting to me about Adams is that he gropes at legal answers from the position of a person with no knowledge of constitutional law. I don't believe his knowledge is as low as he claims, because he claims the lowest level of knowledge. So he's doing theater — look at those theater hands in the freeze frame — the theater of where Everyman believes the answer should be. And that's what Trump is doing too.
Notice that Everyman defers to authority most of the time, and you see Everyman Scott Adams taking the strong position, in comic form. He sets up Alan Dershowitz as the authority, and he asserts that whatever he thinks, if Alan Dershowitz says something else he immediately change his opinion to whatever Dershowitz says.
That's hilarious hyperbole, and I think it lampoons the notion that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, a notion one often sees pushed, but that gets kicked to the curb on those occasions when the outcome feels terribly wrong. For Adams, Alan Dershowitz is the Supreme Court. Hilarious. I get it.
In The Theater of Everyman Scott Adams, sometimes The Supreme Court of Alan Dershowitz gets it wrong. It's a Bowers v. Hardwick or whatever — Citizens United, Roe v. Wade. It feels so wrong, Everyman intuits that it is wrong. He doesn't even know the legal argument, doesn't need to know. Just feels. There's got to be something in there that makes it go where he needs it to go. And isn't that how we do constitutional law in the United States? There's that thing fancy lawyers do. This seems to be one of those times when the fancy thing needs to be done. I'm not giving a lawprof opinion on the subject under discussion. I'm just saying that's how I understand this performance in The Theater of Everyman Scott Adams.
ADDED: "If a Supreme Court reached across the Constitution to pull out some damned thing like privacy... I think they could pull it off."
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
Ok, Ann. It’s time for the expert constitutional law professor from the University of Wisconsin to render an opinion on this important - and undecided - question of constitutional law.
Speak, Althouse!
6% of babies born in the United States born to illegal aliens.
http://www.kausfiles.com/
BTW, Kausfiles is great, but he's gone all in on Twitter.
They're not citizens because the American people have a right to privacy.
My observation is that Althouse isn't here to instruct us as to what she thinks. Her object is to get her commenters to to figure out what they think, and why.
So, David Begley, what do you think on this important--and undecided--question of constitutional law, and why?
"Ok, Ann. It’s time for the expert constitutional law professor from the University of Wisconsin to render an opinion on this important - and undecided - question of constitutional law. Speak, Althouse!"
I'm not a dog or an oracle.
I don't do tricks like that.
Bill Richardson's father sent his mother to stay with acquaintances in Pasadena, CA so that Bill would be born a U.S. citizen. His father was born in Guatemala (but I think I also remember some other Latin American country being stated somewhere else.) Bill's father seems to be rather reticent about sharing his CV with the world, and I do not remember any statement as to his citizenship, but his mother is Mexican of a prominent Mexico City family.
By the way, does anybody see any problems with declaring 6% of the babies born in the USA as non-citizens? How good is that data on who is here legally and who illegally? Can anyone possibly think that the US Supreme Court is going to endorse declaring some unknown but large cohort of residents non-citizens? Would such legislation ever get through Congress?
What if your parents came here sometime in the past on a tourist visa, liked it, and decided to stay. Now, thirty-five years later, someone asks you to prove that your parents were not illegal immigrants. Anyone see any problems for anyone?
Amadeus 48 said...
So, David Begley, what do you think on this important--and undecided--question of constitutional law, and why?
I'll throw in my 2 cents, coming from an original public meaning interpretation:
The only part up for debate seems to be the subject to the jurisdiction phrase. The pubic meaning of that, for the last >100 years has been that it only excluded Native Americans and the children of diplomats. I'm willing to listen to arguments that the original public meaning was more expansive, but I would need to see some clear evidence from the time the 14th was debated, and the things cited so far have been underwhelming.
And note that the Supreme Court has already answered the question for babies born to foreigners in the country legally, so to argue that babies born to illegals do not get citizenship, you would have to find a discussion from the time ( of ratification ) that made that distinction*. You are unlikely to find that, since at that time there was essentially no such thing as illegal immigration.
*Of course, you could argue that the Supreme Court was wrong in the previous case, but then you are not talking about an undecided question of constitutional law.
By the way, because you had Griswald vs. Connecticut on the books, it wasn't that hard to get to Roe v. Wade. What does the US Constitution say about the availability of condoms in Connecticut?
For a transition you naturalize the existing anchor babies and refuse the future ones.
I'm not a dog or an oracle.
I don't do tricks like that.
Oracles are not known for doing tricks. Should have been I'm not a dog or a prostitute.
Yeow! Didn’t expect that response.
Not calling for a prediction either, but surely you must have a learned and expert opinion on the issue without writing a law review article. Hell, you wrote a multi-part law school exam question on the fly. But apparently no answer key.
Amadeus 48 said...
What if your parents came here sometime in the past on a tourist visa, liked it, and decided to stay. Now, thirty-five years later, someone asks you to prove that your parents were not illegal immigrants. Anyone see any problems for anyone?
Is anyone talking about removing citizenship from people born here in the past? I thought the argument was to not extend citizenship to babies born in the future.
someone asks you to prove that your parents were not illegal immigrants.
Well if they overstayed their tourist visa, they were illegal aliens. My mom used to have to register as an alien periodically. There were even PSAs warning people.
Anyway, it is not the babies that make the problem; it is the shmarm about "not separating families," etc., for which there is no constitutional authority. Take away the incentive for adults to follow the "anchor babies," and there won't be a problem left; just one of the quirks of the American Constitution.
Glenn Reynolds used to say "I'm not a public utility!" or something like that, and probably without the exclamation point, since it's bad style.
Amadeus:
I don’t think it is even a close question. The children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens under the 14th Amendment. In the first place the 14th was squarely aimed at the former slaves. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction therof” means the complete jurisdiction of the US. That means, in part, allegiance to the US and all of its laws. Women who fly into CA birthing hotels who give birth and then fly home have not given birth to US citizens. That’s crazy.
SCOTUS ruled that a Native American named John Elk who was born on US soil was NOT a citizen. Not until Congress passed a law in 1924 were Indians made citizens, Congress does not pass unnecessary laws if the Constitution answers the question. That law was no small matter.
Wong Kim Ark is limited. All of this foolishness about birthright citizenship arises from a 1982 footnote by Brennan and then the usual Dem propaganda and wrong Executive policy.
Again, not a close question based upon the law and traditional legal analysis.
My ruling on birthright citizenship would be prospective only.
Require employers to verify citizenship and change the laws on chain migration, and tighten the rules on asylum and the problem goes away.
If you can't claim asylum from that thug government in Cuba, thanks to Obama, I think the people deserving it make up a pretty small cohort. Like gay men from Iran, and the like.
It seems clear-cut to me. The US Constitution is a living breathing document that must address current issues.
Europeans do not allow birthright citizenship.
So under the two most important leftist analysis, birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.
"My ruling on birthright citizenship would be prospective only."
So you want to be a super-legislator. David Begley playing the role of Roger Taney.
Isn't the proper answer that this is a political question upon which the Congress must act, and the Supreme Court will review any such legislation properly brought before it in light of the requirements of the US Constitution?
Drudge links to Ann Coulter.
She does a pretty good job here explaining why the 14th amendment has nothing to do with granting people here as non-citizens or on tourist visas - with the right to citizenship.
The last year, we see Dershowitz on TV has become a careful performance art.He takes positions against Trump where the final answer will have to come from The Kavanaugh Five, but he is pro-Trump on all politically hot issues. He is now in Trump's pocket, for some reason. Could it be the result of Lolita Express blackmail?
Of course the president can end the citizenship of "anchor babies" by executive order -- for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.
It's just something everyone believes to be true.
How could anyone -- even a not-very-bright person -- imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?
THe argument about 6% seems off base: The principle is that anyone born in the US is a citizen, regardless of whether that is 6% or 0.01% or 80% of all babies born. Of course (reductio ad absurdum) if it would not apply in circumstances where 80% of babies born were born to illegal immigrants, then the principle is thrown out of the window, and then on what basis should it apply when it is 6%.
I think Hagar is on to something when he (she?) points out that while the citizenship of the baby seems to be constitutionally protected, there is no protection other than an emotionally driven policy choice (is it even based in legislation?) that parents and other family members of the newly minted citizen also have rights to citizenship or legal residency in the US.
Let's have large government run orphanages for all children born in the US to non-citizens, unless the parents of those children agree to take them back to the parents' home country.
If Congress wanted the 14th to grant birthright citizenship it could have done so. “All persons born on US soil are citizens except the children of foreign diplomats and those of tourists.” Easy.
But it didn’t write those words. It added “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and those words have legal significance.
And I’m no Roger Taney. Given the unsettled status of this issue, the holding can only be prospective. Too much reliance on the old position. People shouldn’t be punished simply because Congress failed to act.
Pandas born in the US to loaned panda-moms are still the property of China.
Conservatives wrestling with the question should adhere to textualism/originalism. I’m tired of seeing conservatives quoting the words of the 14th amendment’s sponsors, i.e. politicians, as being authoritative. The clause means whatever it means. I believe it still means whatever it meant at the time it was enacted, and for that you need to know the public understanding at the time of enactment of the words in the clause. Everyone agrees the key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Argue about the meaning of that phrase in the context of the clause. Don’t go behind the words to say, “well everyone back then thought it was about ex-slaves.” If that was the intent, they could’ve written it that way, but they didn’t. The clause speaks of “all persons.”
If you are an illegal immigrant or a tourist, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when you are on US soil. You can be arrested, deported, taxed. The laws apply to you. Maybe Congress can pass a law immunizing all non-authorized residents from the application of any laws. That would solve the problem, I guess. A modest proposal.
traditionalguy said...
The last year, we see Dershowitz on TV has become a careful performance art.He takes positions against Trump where the final answer will have to come from The Kavanaugh Five
Dershowitz has explained, and I have never seen evidence to the contrary, that he always defends the constitution. If President Trump happens to get caught in the overspray, so be it.
If you are an illegal immigrant or a tourist, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when you are on US soil. You can be arrested, deported, taxed
Can you sit on a jury? Hold elective office? Sponsor an immigrant? Qualify for homestead exemption? Buy a firearm? etc?
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
How could anyone -- even a not-very-bright person -- imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?
Because it grants citizenship to all persons born in our country and subject to our jurisdiction. Since the United States is a sovereign country, anyone who is in the country is subject to our jurisdiction, unless they have a specific exemption. Such specific exemptions exist for foreign diplomats, and used to exist for Native Americans.
We have jurisdiction over everyone else, whether they want us to or not, and whether they agree to follow our laws or not.
David,
Elk was NOT born on us soil.
He was born on a reservation. Sovereign foreign foreign territory. Although surrounded by the United States, not US soil.
John Henry
iowan2 said...
Can you sit on a jury? Hold elective office? Sponsor an immigrant? Qualify for homestead exemption? Buy a firearm? etc?
No. What do any of those questions have to do with jurisdiction?
"Everyman intuits that it is wrong. He doesn't even know the legal argument, doesn't need to know. Just feels."
That's how most plain ol' not-lawyers-but-citizens do it. All of it. They might as well be touching your butt for answers.
I like that visual.
I like visuals.
anyone who is in the country is subject to our jurisdiction, unless they have a specific exemption.
Who would create that exemption? Like an executive order? That would be an exemption?
Everyone agrees the key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Argue about the meaning of that phrase in the context of the clause. Don’t go behind the words to say, “well everyone back then thought it was about ex-slaves.” If that was the intent, they could’ve written it that way, but they didn’t. The clause speaks of “all persons.”
It very much is important to understand the intent of a law. Writers of laws, even constitutional amendments are human and may not anticipate the future interpretation and use of a law nor the moral hazard it might engender. So, we should consider what the intent of the law was at the time, to determine if it was meant to include birth tourism. Would the ratifiers have stated the law differently if they knew that it would result in large numbers of people illegally entering just so they could grant citizenship to their child thus creating a path for their own citizenship, bypassing the normal process and undermining the government's right to determine for itself who should and should not be admitted to the country?
Also, it's not like the SCUSA has not completely ignored the plain meaning of a law to declare that the writers really meant A even though it says B, the ACA tax vs penalty being a recent example.
I think the 14th amendment in regards to anchor babies is in conflict with the ability of the government to grant or not grant citizenship as it sees fit with respect to its constitutional authority. Thus it should be appropriate to clarify the meaning of the amendment in regards to the rights of people who look to subvert our sovereignty. The amendment as currently used encourages illegal, and dangerous behavior, and that should be addressed.
If somebody breaks into your house when you are away and leaves a baby, you are obligated to keep the baby and pay for all expenses until they are 21, including an Ivy League education. Quit your complaining, that's just how it is
Everyone agrees the key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Argue about the meaning of that phrase in the context of the clause. Don’t go behind the words to say, “well everyone back then thought it was about ex-slaves.” If that was the intent, they could’ve written it that way, but they didn’t. The clause speaks of “all persons.”
Let's just pretend the 13th and 14th Amendments weren't about slavery and the Civil War, that's the ticket!
When I was a young lad and my only understanding of "aliens" came from Superman comic books, I found the PSAs on TV reminding all aliens of the need to register, frightening.
"Now, thirty-five years later, someone asks you to prove that your parents were not illegal immigrants. Anyone see any problems for anyone?" NO I do not.
NO My brother in law can just whip out his father's legal papers obtained when he went through the process after coming to the States from Mexico. His wife could wheel in her mother with all the legal paper work for her Mother, Father and herself at age 8 when they immigrated from Germany. NO again their daughter can produce on demand the papers issued to her husband when his family fled Cuba.
No, my mother could just wheel Grandma Davidson down to the Courthouse along with Grandmas's legal Green Card issued years before my mother's birth when he arrived from Sweden and renewed under the old system every year...
Or another my daughter-in-law could produce the paper trail of her birth in Canada to Croatian immigrants , then her legal Green Card which was replaced by a legal citizenship test. She could also produce all the travel and resident status papers for her parents from the former country of Yugoslavia to Canada, to the US all legal after jumping through the legal hoops.
No my wife's girlfriend can produce all the legal papers they legally obtained when her mother and her immigrated from Poland, the daughter age 12.
I could go on for another few paragraphs listing friends, co-workers and schoolmates all who immigrated legally from the following countries: France, Italy, Denmark, Great Britain, The Netherlands and Ireland.
This the result of living and growing up on the South Side of Chicago in the 50s and 60s
So no I have little sympathy for the persons and organizations behind the great immigration push.
To Marcus I don't know about frightening, I just walked Grandma Davidson down and registered, no problem..of course we lived in what would now be called a "Diverse" neighborhood and everyone was familiar with the process and the requirement.
I'm not a dog or an oracle.
We're going to rub your nose over the crack in your basement floor until you speak in tongues and get radon poisoning.
Or we can ask Zeus.
Science is never settled. Neither are questions of Constitutional Law.
Don't even use a word like "settled". It's silly. Anti-intellectual even.
The Supremes can "un-settle" any time they want. Heck, they even make stuff up from visions of emanations in the steam clouds from witches' cauldrons. So -- double, double toil and trouble on the silly notion of settled.
iowan2 said...
Who would create that exemption? Like an executive order? That would be an exemption?
I imagine it would require an act of Congress. But keep in mind that if you say some class of people are not under U.S. jurisdiction, then the U.S. cannot prosecute them for any crimes. The most we can do is deport them.
Every moment that I have ever expended in listening to Scott Adams talk about the law has been a wasted moment, that left me feeling even less informed than before.
Scott Adams;
"I no longer care about the fucking law."
"Persuasion in a world where facts don't matter."
“all persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
why should we interpret this as being identical to "all persons born in the US"? What is the point of adding the "subject to jurisdiction" part?
Scott Adams laughs . . .
Chuck said...
She was always a good, solid, credible nominee.
Completely unlike many other Trump nominations. Like Trump's nomination of Dr. Ricky Bobby for the Veteran's Administration. Or Ben Carson for Department of Black People. Or Scaramucci for anything.
I think that there is general relief that Trump didn't nominate Agent Maxwell Smart for head of the CIA.
5/9/18, 4:29 PM
A perfect example of why birthright citizenship for the children of foreign nationals is a bad idea is Anwar al-Awlaki. His parents were both Yemenis, studying at an American university when he was born in 1971. He returned to Yemen with his parents in 1978 at the age of 7, then returned to the U.S. to attend college here. He became a radicalized Muslim and then a cause celebre when the U.S. government killed him in a drone strike in 2011.
Adams is doing political theater here, but normally 99% of constitutional discussions by non-experts is incredibly painful.
They immediately depart from Constitutional Text and are ignorant of the prior SCOTUS rulings. Its like listening to someone who's skimmed over the New Testament arguing Christian Theology.
65% of the American people can't name ONE SCOTUS Judge. How many could answer this question correctly:
True of False. The Separation of Church and State is written in the Constitution?
Just read Ann Coulter on Birthright Citizenship. She's a lawyer you know.
In any case, what does it matter? We all know if this comes before the SCOTUS ALL 4 Liberal justices will say Birthright Citizenship is in the Constitution. The only question is whether the 5 Center-right justices will disagree.
If the Americans who ran the USA in 1890 or 1910 had realized that by letting in your Grandma they were agreeing to open borders - they would've kicked her Ass out of the country.
And of course, your Grandma was very silent about advocating Open borders wasn't she. If you go back and read your history, you'll see all the Immigrant societies were declaring the immigrants were all Yankee Doodle Dandies - and God Bless America.
Darrell said...
Scott Adams laughs . . .
Chuck said...
"She was always a good, solid, credible nominee.
Completely unlike many other Trump nominations. Like Trump's nomination of Dr. Ricky Bobby for the Veteran's Administration. Or Ben Carson for Department of Black People. Or Scaramucci for anything.
I think that there is general relief that Trump didn't nominate Agent Maxwell Smart for head of the CIA."
You all keep trying to run me down with that comment. Usually, I am not quoted in full. Thank you for quoting me in full. I love it. I'm not retracting the comment; I am not apologizing for it; I hardly think it needs much explanation, as long as someone reads it in the context of that comments page, where I was discussing some media criticism of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, WHO I WAS DEFENDING.
My comment about Ben Carson was purely and pointedly aimed at qualifications for cabinet positions. I am not sorry for ridiculing the absurd White House doctor who seems to have concocted a height and weight for Donald Trump that got him barely within numbers to avoid his being classified as "obese." He was nominated for Veterans Administration and then his entire dubious record became known. I'm sure that Dr. Ronny Jackson was a well-liked guy in many different administrations. But he was plainly not suited to lead a gigantic enterprise like V.A.
As for Carson, no one on these comments pages has ever found a single racist comment from me, nor any other comment critical of Dr. Carson, whom I actually met once in Detroit. I like Dr. Carson enormously, and if there had been a Republican primary where only the names of Carson and Trump were on the ballot, I'd have voted for Carson. My only other comments about Dr. Carson on this blog have been wholly positive.
You nasty shit heads are always desperate to come up with something negative on me, and this demonstrates how little you have.
stan said...
why should we interpret this as being identical to "all persons born in the US"? What is the point of adding the "subject to jurisdiction" part?
We shouldn't. And nobody is suggesting we should. The point of adding the subject to jurisdiction part was to exclude Native Americans, who were under the jurisdiction of their tribes, and ambassadors of foreign governments, who were (and still are) under the jurisdiction of their government.
Chuck, You are the only evidence that is needed.
Keep on fucking that chicken.
"Hell, you wrote a multi-part law school exam question on the fly. But apparently no answer key."
The secret to a good law school essay question is that there is no right/wrong answer.
I think that part of the problem is that it became popular to write amendments to the constitution in an oracular style that would fit with the assumed grandeur of the document. Look at the 26th amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
That was written in 1971. Who wrote that way in 1971? That was the year that Rules for Radicals and A Theory of Justice came out.
Our entire Federal system was upended because the 14th amendment writers couldn't say that former slaves and their children had to be treated decently without conjuring up a slew of equal protection and due process rights and national citizenship definitions and incorporation of rights and powers and obligations that have allowed the SOCUS to declare their swing vote Justice the ruler of all he or she surveys.
An article in Vox, of all places, argues that Dershowitz has grossly oversimplified the Constitutional question.
Our entire Federal system was upended because the 14th amendment writers couldn't say that former slaves and their children had to be treated decently without conjuring up a slew of equal protection and due process rights and national citizenship definitions and incorporation of rights and powers and obligations that have allowed the SOCUS to declare their swing vote Justice the ruler of all he or she surveys.
They could and they did. The 14th Amendment was simply over turning the decision made in Dred Scott that Black people weren't and couldn't be citizens. It's not the fault of the people who wrote and voted for the amendment that the meaning of the amendment has since been twisted and distorted by activist judges.
why should we interpret this as being identical to "all persons born in the US"? What is the point of adding the "subject to jurisdiction" part?
Because the writers recognized that not everyone born within US borders was an American citizen. We're just arguing about who should and who shouldn't be. We are now in a situation in which foreign nationals, hundreds of miles from our borders, are now filing court cases claiming Constitutional "rights" to live in the United States.
Gahrie, the sequence of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments was difficult, with the endpoint unsure, according to my readings about reconstruction (Eric Foner and Bruce Levine, for example). The original thought was to simply free the slaves and see what happened in the states. Then to try to ensure some legal fairness, but not voting rights. Finally it was to grant voting rights to allow reconstructionist governments power. The 14th amendment needs to be viewed as a an intermediary step in the progression (1865, 1868, 1870), where the endpoint was not known at the time. I don't think the authors had a firm grasp on what they were actually proposing, since it was an intermediate step, and some things like segregated schools were to be allowed, while voting rights might or might not be extended.
"I'm not a dog or an oracle.
I don't do tricks like that."
Reminds me of Jon Stewart's "I'm not your monkey." stunt on CNN's Crossfire a few years ago. Trouble is/was Stewart was indeed their monkey. He was the humorist brought onto their show--sucking up millions of dollars of airtime-- to promote his humor book.
Of course, he wasn't literally, but figuratively a "monkey." You are not literally a dog or an oracle, but why are we ignoring your immense Constitutional knowledge? The "trick" here, if there is one, is you depriving us of your opinion. Where is the harm?
A problem with birthright citizenship is that it separates babies from ineligible mothers and/or fathers. It devalues the civil rights of "the People" and "our Posterity". Also, it creates an incentive to avoid emigration reform, and promotes immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises, mass exodus) that produces collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
I enjoyed Scott’s throwaway about the “fun part” being the requirement that it would take some judicial activism to dispose of the birthright issue. If the premise of the exercise would find its foundation in the slavery context leading to the 14th Amendment, we would have a tough time dealing with the context of any language that begins A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,....
Now I happen to believe strongly that the central purpose of the Second Amendment (and that opening language) is to permit us to arm ourselves against the oppression of our rulers, that is not an argument that will gain much traction except for among us crazies and some of the deplorables.
- Krumhorn
As I wrote about none of this matters.
In 1973, 1,000 lawyers could've written a million well-supported words as to why abortion is a constitutional issue.
And it would've met jack-shit, because 5 SCOTUS judges wanted to declare Abortion a constitutional right.
So, they just invented a "right to privacy" and a "Right to an abortion".
All that matters is what 5 SCOTUS judges think. That is the REAL CONSTITUTION.
The Court rediscovered the natural right to privacy, but then diverged and reintroduced the rite to abort a life that is deemed unworthy.
I'm reading about Watergate now and man Richard Nixon was an idiot.
Basically, he gave up his Presidency rather than fight the Judges.
He was constantly patting himself on the back, for obeying the Judges, and not destroying the tapes because of some silly legality. Or not giving John Dean clemency because of blah, blah, legal reason.
All he had to do was fight, and go over the heads of Congress to the American People, but he couldn't do that. Too much of a DC insider.
Play by the rules, die by the rules.
Had Hillary won, we'd be looking at 6-3 hardcore liberal SCOTUS.
Not only would any birthright executive order been found unconstitutional, EVERY measure to stop illegal immigration would've been found unconstitional.
In fact, I don't doubt that the Ginsberg SCOTUS would find Amnesty for illegals a constitutional right in the 14th Amendment.
We dodged a bullet. No thanks to the Never trumpers.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
"But keep in mind that if you say some class of people are not under U.S. jurisdiction, then the U.S. cannot prosecute them for any crimes. The most we can do is deport them."
November 5, 1862; "On this day in Minnesota, more than 300 Santee Sioux are found guilty of raping and murdering Anglo settlers and are sentenced to hang. A month later, President Abraham Lincoln commuted all but 39 of the death sentences. One of the Indians was granted a last-minute reprieve, but the other 38 were hanged simultaneously on December 26 in a bizarre mass execution witnessed by a large crowd of approving Minnesotans."
The "trick" here, if there is one, is you depriving us of your opinion. Where is the harm?
Becoming accountable and responsible for your words.
Can illegal aliens be drafted? By the US, I mean. Of course they could be drafted by the country whose legal jurisdiction they are under.
I feel the Roe v. Wade opinion that the justices feeling there is a right to privacy giving a constitutional right to abortion is bad precedent. Maybe justices, in the future, will feel the right to free speech doesn't Trump your right to not be offended, for instance (an argument made by Green party candidate Ralph Nader).
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Note, as an atheist, I see nothing wrong with abortion, to a point. Only, a feeling doesn't mean it is in the constitution.
"There's got to be something in there that makes it go where he needs it to go. And isn't that how we do constitutional law in the United States?"
Love wins.
"Native Americans did not get citizenship until 1924."
A distinction should be made. Native Americans under tribal rule did not get citizenship until 1924.
Like all the other ethnic groups that came to America, many tribal members intermarried with the settler ethnic groups and lived outside their tribe. As I think I've mentioned before, at the Fort Mims massacre, the leader of the Red Stick Creeks was William Weatherford. The Captain of the militia in the fort as well as a number of others were "half breeds," or, to coin a term, American Indians.
Some mestizos stayed tribal. Some joined America. Those that did were quickly considered Americans, like those at Fort Mims in 1813. Those who stayed tribal got their amnesty in 1924.
Intermarriage is great. I did it. In my wife's family I was called "the American" for a while. I'm with TR. Being a hyphenated-American is just wrong.
The Canines of Delphi have spoken
For the same reason that homosexuals opposed civil unions
Political congruence ("=") or selective exclusion.
Alan Dershowitz. I remember him all over the TV claiming he didn't know whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife.
Simpson had a long history of beating and threatening his wife. Simpson's blood was all over the crime scene. The victims' blood was all over Simpson's house and car. Simpson had a wound on his hand identical to the wound suffered by the murderer.
Alan Dershowitz - "If only there were more clues..."
I suppose there is a chance Dershowitz will read this and I don't want to hurt the man's feelings, so let me put it like this. Alan Dershowitz is "Ot-nay Oo-tay Ight-bray"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा