The Supreme Court discussion thread

What if my grandfather was here technically illegally? Great grandfather?

So, what stops them from deporting every descendant of a slave?

We used to as part of our peace process, so people from the North could claim Irish citizenship, but then loads who weren't from Ireland did indeed take advantage of it so it got scrapped.

i'm not sure what games you're attempting here, i simply pointed out that what you are treating as a universal right is in fact very much as american an outlier as our rejection of the metric system

as I said doesn't apply to the USA.

for the USA this applies

/

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

/

and the topic is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

for the Trump admin it means "legally in the USA".

for many others it means "everyone in the USA except diplomats".

in either cases blacks were covered after the civil war (which is the purpose of that clause)

Nixon lost only one state in 1972.

not exactly. it's a new world thing. most countries in north and south America have similar provisions, while almost everywhere else in the world we don't.

that's because when those countries were born they were empty. so it made sense to allow people to just come, have children, and all of them being citizens.

it's an absurd , insane, completely out of whack provision today.

but that's what constitutional amendments exist for.

200 years on the books with only a handful of court decisions on the subject make in rather incontestable that we should not give a **** what other countries do or not do.

yes now do abortion being regulated for 200 years then leftist inventing the constitution has a right to abortion.

or the death penalty being obviously allowed then leftists inventing there are constitutional provisions against it.

ofc you shouldn't care about other countries when assessing the constitutionality.

The Supreme Court basically said “of course everyone has to follow the law, including the president. Except the president when he doesn’t want to follow the law”

Legit Rick James “why would I rub my feet on his couch? Yeah I remember rubbing my feet on his couch” energy

To talk like luciom, the revenge tour will be ruthless. But I’m talking when the dems take back power after all these incredibly unpopular implementations

10 years from now one side will be completely squashed out

wtf? SCOTUS said district courts can block the enforcement of EOs and laws but only for the actual people who asked those courts for redress.

this isn't even just about executive power ffs.

do you guys even bother reading the actual decisions before commenting?

This decision?

Lucien is happy about the SC decision .
Imagine next time a Democrat wins and start abusing executive orders lol ….
Especially with « Marxist » or DEI policies !

then people go to court, and then appeal courts if warranted give redress with nationwide injunctions.

I do Not want extremist right-wing judges to have the power of blocking leftist stuff which is legal, I am not an eversive hater of the rule of law unlike leftists

Fwiw

I though it was very common .

AI Overview

A person born in Canada is automatically a Canadian citizen by birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. This is known as "birthright citizenship" or "citizenship by soil". Similarly, a person born outside Canada to a Canadian parent (by birth or naturalization) can also be a Canadian citizen by descent.

But I didn’t check elsewhere, maybe you right.
But to me it seemed pretty normal , tho it’s true I only had the knowledge of only 2 countries .

Regales , that is what trump and the SC doing ….
Trump and the SC lefties ?
lol…

From south Sudan

What???
You literally said that you dodged lockdowns with special tactics.
Seems pretty eversive(subversive ?) to me.

what is that map?
Spain belgium and france are not on it, why????

Anyone with any sense of consistency would see that the administration is full of it. If people in the country illegally were not "subject to the jurisdiction" then they could not be convicted of crimes or even deported. This is one of the problems with the advisors to Trump - they just make **** up and then say, "Hey, no court has said otherwise, so we're just going to go ahead and do it until told not to".

Because just being born in France Spain or Belgium doesn't automatically give you citizenship

Legal tactics. If being technically employed by a realtor allows you to go around and you get the proper docs for that, there is no illegality.

That you actually at the end don't do anything for that realtor isn't illegal, they didn't explicitly considered that case

Nah, strict constructionism via original intent or textualism on these issues is a completely sophomoric method on interpreting the document. As we have become a more sophisticated society our concepts of justice, privacy and cruel and unusual should also increase, not decrease, in sophistication. Scalia disciples and Thomas dodging the real issue of the blatantly unconstitutional EO until it is ripe is an act of cowardice by our highest court. Let the executive bully have his way for six months deporting kids….. they are clowns and should be impeached.

I, of course, agree with the bolded. But that's why the Constitution itself has a process of adding amendments to address those changes.

Then again, important to remember what Nixon said in his interview with David Frost : 'If the President does it, it's not illegal.'