US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2223

In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) — a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship — a majority of the Supreme Court mentioned in passing that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".[38]

The 14th Amendment was designed to prevent the denial of citizenship to former slaves. In invalidated Dred Scott v. Sanford. Justice Roger B. Taney in the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857) held that African Americans, whether slave or free, had never been and could never become citizens of the United States, as they were excluded by the Constitution

On August 22 2015 00:08 farvacola wrote:


Obiter dictum
Gonna need a lot more than that.

In a 5-4 decision issued on April 14, 1873, by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Court held to a narrow interpretation of the amendment and ruled that it did not restrict the police powers of the state. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities clause affected only rights of United States citizenship and not state citizenship. Therefore the butchers' Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. At the time, the Court viewed due process in a procedural light rather than substantively. The Court further held that the amendment was primarily intended to protect former slaves and so could not be broadly applied.

On August 21 2015 16:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
No, my concern is entirely that the article summary says "Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity" and I have absolutely no idea what the law considers to be a "change" and what exactly it considers to be a young person's "sexual orientation or gender identity."

Because without reading the legal text, those wordings sound so ambiguous that anything could happen. If a doctor evaluates a transgendered person and declares that they are not, does that mean the doctor is barring said person from getting therapy and help?

If a parent doesn't like their child being transgendered or gay, can they use this law as a bludgeon to force legal costs on therapists helping children to transition or come out by accusing the therapist of "changing" their child?

On August 22 2015 02:28 Acrofales wrote:
I am continuously in doubt whether whatissheep's coverage of the Trump campaign is him seriously rooting for "the Donald", or is tongue-in-cheek. Then again, to an outsider like myself, the whole Trump campaign looks line one giant joke, so I guess it is really hard for me to see someone ernestly stumping for Trump.

The whole thing would really make far more sense to me if Trump were to appear on the news next week or so and yell "hahahahaha April fools", because despite it not being April, that is still really the only thing that makes sense to me.

On August 22 2015 02:38 Plansix wrote:
By the name note, Jon Stewart could pull the exact same number of people. I don't know if he would win the general election. One of the main problems with these crowds and polls is that we can't be sure how seriously people are taking the election that is over a year away. Deez Nuts is a pretty clear example there are a reasonable amount of people who don't care or are just watching for the circus.

On August 22 2015 03:04 Danglars wrote:
The real joke is GOP establishment positions on illegal immigration. Two parties, pretty much one immigration position amongst elites. So along comes this buffoon with some kernel of sanity amidst the hilarity. He's got mainstream GOP candidates pushing back against him, but who themselves hold insane positions on the tide of millions of illegal immigrants. I welcome the disruption, though will not support Trump in my state's primary.

On August 22 2015 03:04 ticklishmusic wrote:


Just walking through some thoughts about Stewart 2016:

A lot of people like him and if they squinted would probably agree that he's a smart and fairly charismatic guy who could potentially be a good president. Oh, and he comes baggage free. The demographic that likes him would "know better" than to consider him a serious candidate, and they usually have lousy turnout.

Oh heck, if Jon Stewart cobbled together a reasonable platform and nabbed a few advisors, I'm sure he could make a decent run. He could probably kickstarter his campaign and do pretty well.

On August 22 2015 03:21 jcarlsoniv wrote:


Jon looked exhausted by the end of his show. I'm almost certain he would never want to be in that position.

That's kinda how I feel about the petition for him to moderate a DNC debate. I think he would be a great moderator, but I think he just wants to rest for a while.

On August 22 2015 03:23 Plansix wrote:

His said "I would like to see my family. I'm told they are nice people." I doubt he is going to be doing much but sitting on the sidelines for several years.

On August 22 2015 05:03 KwarK wrote:
I think most of the left wingers on tl are wishing Trump to do as well as he can in the Republican primary and Clinton as badly as she can in the Democratic one. That'd be the path of least resistance for Bernie who is the candidate we'd recognize as actually being left wing, rather than just an American Democratic. Lots of non Americans here and Clinton is to them at best the lesser of two evils imo.

On August 22 2015 05:01 xDaunt wrote:
So are you liberals ready to throw Hillary overboard yet? If not, how much more of this worsening email scandal do you need to see?

On August 22 2015 05:13 KwarK wrote:
Moderate socialism is a legitimate political stance, not a troll stance.