The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
Indeed. If the decent people won't do anything to reform the system then its just a matter of time ....
Indeed. If the decent people won't do anything to reform the system then its just a matter of time ....
I see. So you are an accelerationist now.
I think ignoring festering sores and then conplaiing about the infection is a poor way to do politics.
So if my accelerationist you mean not supporting doing **** all then yes I am
I think ignoring festering sores and then conplaiing about the infection is a poor way to do politics.
So if my accelerationist you mean not supporting doing **** all then yes I am
And after we set fire to the idea of constitutions, what do you expect to rise from the ashes?
I'm not a fan of setting fire to things.
If you mean how should the system be reformed then I approve. That's what politics should be about.
The people who wrote the constitution had no immigration rules at all. AFAIK people just arrived here on ships, moved wherever they wanted to, and no one tried to stop them.Then their sons (if they were white and maybe if they owned property) were considered to be full citizens. Though the question of eligibility to vote was generally determined by the state, even for national
Chillrob. Founders didn't have the 14a so there was no CONSTITUTIONAL provision about citizenship, but it was one the first acts of congress (in 1790) to write a law about how people became citizens of the USA.
and btw citizenship was strictly limited only to free white people in that act as you mention.
Trump admin is claiming that the constitutional provision in the 14a, for the expression "under the jurisdiction", only meant people legally in the USA. that's about it. they aren't claiming the president can decide who is a citizen and who isn't. they are claiming the constitution has been previously interpreted wrongly on that matter.
and the final word on this will be with the judiciary.
I'm not a fan of setting fire to things.
If you mean how should the system be reformed then I approve. That's what politics should be about.
the reform you have in mind is either constitutional amendments (good luck passing any in this environment) or eversion (which is what rococo is referring to).
the constitution is the rule of the game and some people have to be tasked in having the final word in what the rules are. this is inescapable.
you can build the court in various ways if you want a court to be the final arbiter, or you can do like a few countries do with the parliament being actually sovereign and being the final decisor of what the constitution is (UK, Netherlands).
you can have a separate court that is the final arbiter of constitutionality but not the final court of appeal, like France and Italy have, and build it differently.
by at the end whatever body you have the power of interpreting the constitution, and the executive or legislative action under purview for constitutionality, the people making up that body will decide *the way they prefer* about constitutionality.
some of them will decide according to "living constitution" principles, sharing the disdain for the past you have, others will decide with regards to what the people who wrote the text intended, others will just decide depending on what they what to achieve in society disregarding the text.
this is not "reformable".
if you want basic rules governing society (most importantly a list of what parliament and the executive and judges cannot do, and rules about how parliament, the executive and the judiciary are drafted), you need an entity that is the final arbiter, and you need to accept there will be human beings in that entity deciding what they prefer according to their own philosophy.
I'm not a fan of setting fire to things.
If you mean how should the system be reformed then I approve. That's what politics should be about.
"I approve" isn't an answer to "what do you expect to happen if your plan is followed." For that matter, "reform" isn't really an answer either.
I have never heard the term eversion in the context of constitutional law. AFAIK, it is not a legal term of art in the United States.
"I approve" isn't an answer to "what do you expect to happen if your plan is followed." For that matter, "reform" isn't really an answer either.
i think the USA have the best system or close to that.
something I suggest detractors of the American system to do is to check what constitutional courts do in other countries, or to think how the dutch system would work in the USA (congress having the power to decide what the constitution means).
then within the American system little details might be changed, maybe for the better, but I fear people thinking that lifetime appointments are terrible are wrong. I don't think 18 years would necessarily be better and even if they are, it would be in a very marginal way.
what should be better in terms of democratic representation in the judiciary would be to have every presidential term appoint the same number of judges. that would be fair. it's quite obscene that political considerations of the utmost importance linger on random deaths and life expectancy profiles of people sitting in crucial seat.
so I am not against lifetime appointments because I think the quality of the decision making deteriorates with them ( I don't) but I can see how 16y appointments so all the judiciary rotating every 16 years (in 2 years installments) would be democratically better. every side would know that winning presidential elections guarantee 1/4 of the judiciary is inspired by your side judicial philosophy.
but then you have to change the Senate confirmation process, because at this point in time I think that if Harris had won the election, but the Senate had been republican majority, they would have blocked all judicial nominations
I have never heard the term eversion in the context of constitutional law. AFAIK, it is not a legal term of art in the United States.
it isn't within constitutional law in fact.
sorry it's SUBversion in English (in Italian eversione), ie a coup, a violent upheaval of the system, the accelerationism you mentioned.
you either use constitutional amendments, or you burn down the legal system to it's core (subversion), there are no other reform methods for SCOTUS
"I approve" isn't an answer to "what do you expect to happen if your plan is followed." For that matter, "reform" isn't really an answer either.
It is the answer. Demanding the end product before we do the work of what reforms we want and bulding a platform is a trick to avoid doing anything.
I can offer lots of ideas (and have many times) but that's not the issue. The problem is that reform is not part of the political agenda when it should be the key part.
Then do all that's left which is be able to point the finger at the bad guys, It wasn't us.
I thought Trump signing 164 EOs in his first 100+ days was an indication of how much harder he was working than Biden only passing 162 in 4 years. I guess you just can’t believe the right wing media these days.It is highly doubtful that the “folks that drafted the constitution” were involved in drafting the 14th amendment, unless they are still on the social security rolls lik
I didn't say they were, but I believe the actual practice regarding citizenship was as I described.
Chillrob. Founders didn't have the 14a so there was no CONSTITUTIONAL provision about citizenship, but it was one the first acts of congress (in 1790) to write a law about how people became citizens of the USA.
and btw citizenship was strictly limited only to free white people in that act as you mention. Trump admin is clYes, but it's being done because he wants it to be interpreted in a way that I had never heard of anyone claiming until last year.
And he doesn't actually believe that illegal immigrants aren't under the jurisdiction of the US. If they weren't, he would have no power to deport them, or try them for any alleged crimes.
Yes, but it's being done because he wants it to be interpreted in a way that I had never heard of anyone claiming until last year.
And he doesn't actually believe that illegal immigrants aren't under the jurisdiction of the US. If they weren't, he would have no power to deport them, or try them for any alleged crimes.
Keep in mind that for originalist, what "under the jurisdiction" means depends in the meaning and intent of the drafters of the 14a, which doesnt necessarily means the same judicially or in current day meaning.
Keep in mind natives were not "under the jurisdiction" which is why they weren't citizens even after the 14a, the Indian citizenship act was needed in 1924 to give them citizenship.
And they were certainly not immune to prosecution if they committed a crime within US soil.
This isn't even really about immigration. It's about the SC giving up their role as a check and becoming an arm of the executive branch.
It is the answer. Demanding the end product before we do the work of what reforms we want and bulding a platform is a trick to avoid doing anything.I can offer lots of ideas (and have many times) but that's not the issue. The problem is that reform is not part of the political agenda when it should be the key part.Then do all that's left which is be able to point the finger at
This is not difficult. I'm not entirely sure, but it appears that you want to abolish the "nonsense" of constitutions. What does that mean in your mind? What do you think the result will be?
If that isn't the "reform" that you have in mind, then what is the reform that you have in mind, and what do you believe it will achieve? If this other reform you have in mind is not politically achievable, do you prefer abolishment to whatever, if anything, you believe is achievable?
And please don't refer me to ideas you apparently have explained "many times." I do not maintain an encyclopedic knowledge of chez's greatest works, just as I am sure you do not maintain an encyclopedic knowledge of my posts.
This isn't even really about immigration. It's about the SC giving up their role as a check and becoming an arm of the executive branch.
You must live in a weird bubble where the court didn't reverse Chevron, thus vastly REDUCING executive power because now the agency (which means EXECUTIVE AGENCY, a part of governement) interpretation of a rule isn't going to be the correct one automatically anymore.
This is not difficult. I'm not entirely sure, but it appears that you want to abolish the "nonsense" of constitutions. What does that mean in your mind? What do you think the result will be? If that isn't the "reform" that you have in mind, then what is the reform that you have in mind, and what do you believe it will achieve? If this other reform you have in mind is not p
I dont know what the result will be but you're being misleading in making it sound like I want to abolish it first.
I disagree with your very notion that we start with the endpoint. We need progressive forces to argue for change, develop ideas/policies and keep trying. Not because we know were we're going to end up but because change is both needed and inevitable.
Personally I'd go for a parliamentary system with an elected hos with limited mostly veto powers. But I'm not dogmatic about it and ideas develop. Maybe building the case just for updating the consitution could be made. Or who knows. Should have started decades ago but still got to start even if it may be late. At the very least have the embryonic basis of something to roll out if needed.
I dont know what the result will be but you're being misleading in making it sound like I want to abolish it first. I disagree with your very notion that we start with the endpoint. We need progressive forces to argue for change, develop ideas/policies and keep trying. Not because we know were we're going to end up but because change is both needed and inevitable.
I don't even know what you mean when you say that I am starting with the endpoint. I haven't proposed anything in particular.
Bolded has nothing to do with stopping
the 'wise men' interpreting a centuries old bit of paper nonsense.
You're demanding I start with the endpoint.
A new constitution wouldn't involve interprrting an old bit of paper.
As always it's objection to the idea of not doing **** alll. It's always easy to object. How about the other way round for a change - what sort of reform would you like to see?
You're demanding I start with the endpoint.
A new constitution wouldn't involve interprrting an old bit of paper.
As always it's objection to the idea of not doing **** alll. It's always easy to object. How about the other way round for a change - what sort of reform would you like to see?
Could it already be a solid groundwork and you just have bad interpretations
Take birthright citizenship. I doubt the forefathers could imagine rich Asians flying here to have a baby so it can have US citizenship
Right to bear arms was so you could fight a oppressive government back when it was just muskets and pistols
Could it already be a solid groundwork and you just have bad interpretations
Take birthright citizenship. I doubt the forefathers could imagine rich Asians flying here to have a baby so it can have US citizenship
Right to bear arms was so you could fight a oppressive government back when it was just muskets and pistols
It wasn't super common but neither unheard of , to have pregnant women in the ships coming to the USA (usually wives of someone on the same ship, with other kids as well).
They could have written a line to exclude them if they wanted to.
What the people writing the 14a didn't have in mind was people entering illegally. It was almost impossible (there were no influxes from the south by land). It's close to impossible to arrive by ship and be a ghost.
There was no strict regulation of entrants in the immediate after math of the civil war.
So that children of legal residents are citizens, I don't think any vaguely honest interpretation of the constitution could say otherwise.
Now children of illegals, that's different.
