|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendmentShow nested quote +
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen.
I doubt he’ll seriously actually try this. He just has to dangle it enough to make his supporters think he’s trying and then back off on actual follow through
See his magical wall
|
On December 09 2024 11:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. I doubt he’ll seriously actually try this. He just has to dangle it enough to make his supporters think he’s trying and then back off on actual follow through See his magical wall
There was nothing blatantly unconstitutional about his wall. It was totally impractical and unfeasible from a financial perspective but there was nothing illegal about it.
Trump would be openly violating an ammendment to the constitution if he tried to end Naturalized Citizenship. The President simply doesn't have the power to do that.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. I have very little faith in the Supreme Court or Congress saying No to Trump, if he truly pushes to do something unconstitutional.
I have pretty high levels of faith here. It’s really not something that’s open to interpretation, or fudgeable.
I may be proven wrong, but I think it’s too unambiguously within the confines of the constitution to be struck out here. Broadly speaking I think some of the Supreme Court can be little shits when there’s ambiguity, but when there isn’t they do tend to respect the Constitution and precedent.
In the same sense that even if it was a liberally packed court, I wouldn’t expect them to hardcore gut the second Amendment, because they can’t really without a further amendment
|
On December 09 2024 11:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. I have very little faith in the Supreme Court or Congress saying No to Trump, if he truly pushes to do something unconstitutional. I have pretty high levels of faith here. It’s really not something that’s open to interpretation, or fudgeable. I may be proven wrong, but I think it’s too unambiguously within the confines of the constitution to be struck out here. Broadly speaking I think some of the Supreme Court can be little shits when there’s ambiguity, but when there isn’t they do tend to respect the Constitution and precedent. In the same sense that even if it was a liberally packed court, I wouldn’t expect them to hardcore gut the second Amendment, because they can’t really without a further amendment
And there is a SHIT LOAD of ambiguity in the second ammendment compared to the 14th.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 11:48 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:45 WombaT wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. I doubt he’ll seriously actually try this. He just has to dangle it enough to make his supporters think he’s trying and then back off on actual follow through See his magical wall There was nothing blatantly unconstitutional about his wall. It was totally impractical and unfeasible from a financial perspective but there was nothing illegal about it. Trump would be openly violating an ammendment to the constitution if he tried to end Naturalized Citizenship. The President simply doesn't have the power to do that.
He either just quietly drops it, or pursues it vigorously while complaining that the Constitution is stopping him.
I think either way it’s not happening, but however that practically manifests I think his play will be his standard ‘I would do x but for y’
A significant chunk of his base doesn’t actually care about the spirit of the Constitution so he can just play to the gallery
|
On December 09 2024 05:25 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 05:09 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 04:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed. I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to. But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation). I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done. I never spouted pacifism. You didn't understand the argument back then, and you still don't. You never listened to what I said and called me an extremist. Also, you still have the same opportunity as before to simply DM me so you can learn about my views instead of fabricating some nonsense that I never said. We don‘t use the p-word here. Watch that mouth. I was just leaving. While I support the fight against massive inequality, I don‘t really see why one has to write an essay on why it‘s not okay to just execute people you don‘t like. Protesting enough can do the trick.
When was the last time protesting led to any meaningful change in the US? Did the BLM or occupy Wall Street folks simply not protest enough?
|
On December 09 2024 12:01 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 05:25 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2024 05:09 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 04:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed. I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to. But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation). I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done. I never spouted pacifism. You didn't understand the argument back then, and you still don't. You never listened to what I said and called me an extremist. Also, you still have the same opportunity as before to simply DM me so you can learn about my views instead of fabricating some nonsense that I never said. We don‘t use the p-word here. Watch that mouth. I was just leaving. While I support the fight against massive inequality, I don‘t really see why one has to write an essay on why it‘s not okay to just execute people you don‘t like. Protesting enough can do the trick. When was the last time protesting led to any meaningful change in the US? Did the BLM or occupy Wall Street folks simply not protest enough?
From the media coverage it looked like blm was quite successful.
OWS was annoying enough to the establishment that they sent in cops to pepperspray a bunch of students just sitting around. The banks smooth operation is what they need.
Both at once could have achieved critical mass.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 08:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 03:28 Zambrah wrote:On December 08 2024 21:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 08 2024 15:41 Zambrah wrote:Once you have normalized that we can kill each other if we have a really good reason, I dont see how this isn't what the US healthcare system isnt already doing. Why is systematized death so much more tolerable? Its entirely normalized in the US that US healthcare companies can cause you to suffer and die for the really goodest reason in capitalism, money. To answer the second part, when political action is broken, you fight to restore the power of political action. It’s slow, it’s frustrating, it’s despairingly difficult. It needs to be done at every level, from complete grassroot to the top of the political apparatus. It means a lot of convincing. And the result is not guaranteed. How do you restore the power of poltiical action within a system coopted by the rich and powerful? Do you think that the rich and powerful will give up their money without the threat of violence? This is the same problem the police as an institution have, even if you get some good cops they get squeezed out or turned into bad cops by the institutionalized power of all of the bad cops. You can elect politicians that say they want to do things you want, but the system is setup to make sure that those things you want that conflict with what the rich and powerful want do not happen. Sorry, but societally, violence has to be an option. If Elon Musk bought Wizards of the Coast and basically gave himself ultimate power in Dungeons and Dragons then nothing you do can force him to rescind his ultimate power so you can enjoy the game without either, A. abandoning Dungeons and Dragons B. beating his ass up until he changes it back. It would be nice not to have to be in this place, but we are in that place. Take it up with billionaires and all of the other awful scumbags who have systematically hurt and killed so many people for green paper, because at this point theyre the only ones with any meaningful ability to affect systematic change. EDIT: None of this even begins to approach the problem of the unbelievable human suffering and death that we just have to accept while whatever concept you have for a long and hard road plays out. There is no path here that is not drenched with blood, I just personally prefer the one with the blood of the people responsible for this situation instead of droves of ostensible innocents. If you don’t see the difference between what is happening in the US with healthcare acting like douches and what i am talking about, mate, there is nothing to talk about. I am talking about people being thrown alive from planes. At some point i am powerless to make a point if you don’t at the very least make a little effort. At the end it’s always there limits of this thread. The complete incapacity of just getting out of your little, narrow, priviledged American perspective and realize that, yeah, the US absolutely suck, but it’s worse when death squads come and disappear your whole family because someone once participated in a demonstration. That’s what happened in Argentina and it started with good left wing folks innocently murdering the really bad rich CEOs in the street. And no, a death ain’t equal a death. Someone dying because he got denied his medicine is horrible, but a couple of 23 years olds getting arrested, taken to a military building, tortured for weeks, then have the dude thrown from a plane from 2000 metres while the military waits for the wife to give birth in order to steal her baby and give it to infertile officers before throwing her into the sea also is really, really, really, really worse. Can’t you see it? Or is it “what the US system is already doing?” So that’s what a civil war looks like. Do you want that. Honestly, i am absolutely on the same side than you, but you make me angry, and so, i am out if there. And no, a death ain’t equal a death. Someone dying because he got denied his medicine is horrible, but a couple of 23 years olds getting arrested, taken to a military building, tortured for weeks, then have the dude thrown from a plane from 2000 metres while the military waits for the wife to give birth in order to steal her baby and give it to infertile officers before throwing her into the sea also is really, really, really, really worse. Can’t you see it? Or is it “what the US system is already doing?” I had an extremely negative reaction to chemo, I was in extreme pain for like four days before I got oxys to dull it, it felt like someone was driving an ice pick deep into the my jaw and up into my temple, it was some of the absolute worst pain I have ever felt in my life, and if it had gone on another day or two I would've bought a gun and blown my fucking brains out. I got relief, eventually, other people often don't, they're left in limbo while their insurance decides if they feel like approving their claim for meds or surgery or whatever procedure they need to not be in agony. Some of them die before it happens. So no, I really don't think the things we're talking about are so incomparable, but hey, if you're fine with death and intense suffering so long as its not cinematic or whatever thats on you, but don't pretend like theres some grand difference between someone being tortured in a hospital bed and someone being tortured in a dark room. They're both torture. Capitalism may make it seem like one is better because its been so normalized, because its more passive, but its still suffering and death and its preventable, but capitalism doesnt want to prevent it, capitalism dictates that letting these people suffer and die is actually the right thing to do. If you don’t see the difference between what is happening in the US with healthcare acting like douches and what i am talking about, mate, there is nothing to talk about. I am talking about people being thrown alive from planes.
At some point i am powerless to make a point if you don’t at the very least make a little effort. Yeah I'm the one not making any effort here. Come back when you're willing to stop accepting unnecessary suffering and death just because its not compatible with a scene in an action movie. Do you care to respond to my previous post where I explained your example of the guy who was denied his prescribed drug would also not have had access to it under Canada's version of socialized medicine because it's simply too expensive to cover? Is that a better system? It's obviously a much more equitable system. Instead of some people being denied this drug nobody gets the drug. Pretty fair for sure. There's also the many thousands of people that die every year while on waitlists for life-saving or quality of life improving surgeries. A lot of death and suffering there for sure. I'm not trying to make an argument over which healthcare system is better or defend health insurance CEOs that deny patient's access to healthcare to boost their profit margins. My point is that posts like yours are offered with a refusal to acknowledge that death and suffering is always necessary in a system with finite resources (aka all of them). The guy getting both Entyvio and Remicade infusions at doses that exceed FDA guidelines might be the only person in the world with such a treatment plan. It's odd to use an example of a guy that's getting better healthcare than 99.9999% of people to ever exist to make your point that capitalism sucks and we need to blow it up.
Yeah fair points.
Equally the US system costs about 2x per capita what the UK system costs. And most of those costs are incurred because of profit incentives within the US system.
Even quite basic at this juncture medicine such as insulin is far cheaper for the UK state to obtain and dole out, than it is via the American system.
One of the main reasons the UK’s nationalised health service may not offer a particular drug is because it’s too expensive. It’s a health service that has to serve everyone, be they a millionaire or a homeless crack fiend.
Why is it too expensive? Well we’re back into profit motives again.
As I said before, many bemoan the dysfunction of the NHS, they may be very angry indeed over some of the problems there. But folks don’t really have an issue with the core morality of it, which is what separates the systems.
And there’s a fix to these problems, it’s more tax and investment (plus intelligent planning). The NHS is especially struggling because of a ballooning cost for end of life care, dementia, that kind of thing, and an ageing population accentuates. Your costs ride on a curve, you’ve a lot as an infant, on average if you’re not unlucky or especially unhealthy you’re ok for a while, then your costs skyrocket when you’re elderly. And people are more likely these days to get to that juncture.
Hypothetically, monstrous as it sounds the health service would have much less strain if say, elderly dementia patients were just left as lost causes (which they are, sadly, having lost my two surviving grandparents to the disease in the last few years),
But we don’t do that over here, we try, sometimes we fail. But we give it a fair fucking go. Which I think is a pretty marked difference to ‘your insurance isn’t good enough, guess you die’.
|
On December 09 2024 11:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. I have very little faith in the Supreme Court or Congress saying No to Trump, if he truly pushes to do something unconstitutional. I have pretty high levels of faith here. It’s really not something that’s open to interpretation, or fudgeable. I may be proven wrong, but I think it’s too unambiguously within the confines of the constitution to be struck out here. Broadly speaking I think some of the Supreme Court can be little shits when there’s ambiguity, but when there isn’t they do tend to respect the Constitution and precedent. In the same sense that even if it was a liberally packed court, I wouldn’t expect them to hardcore gut the second Amendment, because they can’t really without a further amendment
Oh, don't get me wrong: I agree with you that the Constitution is clear. I just don't think that matters, given how Trump is so clearly above the law.
I hope he doesn't try anything *else* illegal at all. But I guess we'll see if he does, and if he's stopped!
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 12:01 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 05:25 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2024 05:09 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 04:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed. I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to. But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation). I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done. I never spouted pacifism. You didn't understand the argument back then, and you still don't. You never listened to what I said and called me an extremist. Also, you still have the same opportunity as before to simply DM me so you can learn about my views instead of fabricating some nonsense that I never said. We don‘t use the p-word here. Watch that mouth. I was just leaving. While I support the fight against massive inequality, I don‘t really see why one has to write an essay on why it‘s not okay to just execute people you don‘t like. Protesting enough can do the trick. When was the last time protesting led to any meaningful change in the US? Did the BLM or occupy Wall Street folks simply not protest enough?
You’re probably talking the Vietnam War era.
I’m not really too sure what happened with OWS, there seemed a lot of solid initial momentum and that kinda dissipated but I must say I’m not sure why. Nobody really likes Wall Street outside of hardcore free market zealots, which isn’t all that many folks proportionally
BLM feels more explicable, it became a very partisan, splitting issue and that diffused it somewhat. A pity IMO for sure, but one I can kinda understand. Your ‘there is no racism anymore’ or your ‘we think there is racism but don’t express your dissatisfaction like that’ types kinda collectively neutered it.
BLM didn’t do nothing, and I think it set things culturally to a degree. In practical immediate terms it basically got the likes of Chauvin prosecuted but no wider reforms.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 12:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:53 WombaT wrote:On December 09 2024 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. I have very little faith in the Supreme Court or Congress saying No to Trump, if he truly pushes to do something unconstitutional. I have pretty high levels of faith here. It’s really not something that’s open to interpretation, or fudgeable. I may be proven wrong, but I think it’s too unambiguously within the confines of the constitution to be struck out here. Broadly speaking I think some of the Supreme Court can be little shits when there’s ambiguity, but when there isn’t they do tend to respect the Constitution and precedent. In the same sense that even if it was a liberally packed court, I wouldn’t expect them to hardcore gut the second Amendment, because they can’t really without a further amendment Oh, don't get me wrong: I agree with you that the Constitution is clear. I just don't think that matters, given how Trump is so clearly above the law. I hope he doesn't try anything *else* illegal at all. But I guess we'll see if he does, and if he's stopped!
I haven’t exactly favoured quite a few of the SC’s recent rulings. But equally I don’t think they’re Trump thralls
They’ll find with him perhaps if it’s something vaguely debatable, but something so clearly unambiguously stated I just don’t see it.
I don’t agree with the Supreme Court’s conservative cohort on many of their pronouncements, but I do feel most of them have some integrity and value the office.
I may be proven wrong, I think if it’s something so unambiguously enshrined in the Constitution, they’re finding against what Trump’s looking.
And if not well, it’s not going to be pretty. Returning to my previous points on violence versus legal mechanisms of redress.
If your President, with the support of the Supreme Court unilaterally revoke your citizenship despite it being grossly unconstitutional , how’s that gonna go?
Not pretty I’m gonna guess. Which is why I don’t think Trump will do it if he’s remotely sensibly advised.
He’ll dangle the carrot for his base, but actually following through would be disastrous, I think he knows this. And as his base are as satiated by a dangled carrot than actually getting their hands on one, I don’t know if we’ll see much actually happen here
|
On December 09 2024 12:25 WombaT wrote:
BLM feels more explicable, it became a very partisan, splitting issue and that diffused it somewhat. A pity IMO for sure, but one I can kinda understand. Your ‘there is no racism anymore’ or your ‘we think there is racism but don’t express your dissatisfaction like that’ types kinda collectively neutered it.
BLM didn’t do nothing, and I think it set things culturally to a degree. In practical immediate terms it basically got the likes of Chauvin prosecuted but no wider reforms.
The Chicago woman who founded BLM Canada defrauded the U of Toronto Students Union for $277,000. When Sami Yatim was murdered BLM did nothing. I asked a bunch of BLMTO people about Wade Lawson. The people in BLMTO should have extensive knowledge of his case. No one knew anything about him.
BLM is useless.
https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/12/utsu-settles-lawsuit-with-sandra-hudson/
I'd say Barry Scheck has done far more than BLM.
|
On December 09 2024 12:01 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 05:25 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2024 05:09 Magic Powers wrote:On December 09 2024 04:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2024 01:40 Acrofales wrote:On December 08 2024 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 23:25 justanothertownie wrote:On December 08 2024 22:49 Magic Powers wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the CEO Brian Thompson and other CEOs who are exploiting people's labor or illegally speculating with people's money. They're not the same kinds of CEOs. They're literally not the same kinds of people.
Brian Thompson is practically the nurse who deliberately overdoses patients on a saline solution. You wouldn't shed a tear if that nurse got taken out in a crossfire by police. But for some reason you're shedding crocodile tears in the instance of Thompson-hit-the-cement who is literally equal to a serial killer nurse. I for one am certainly not shedding tears. The world might very well be a better place without him. The issue comes when you start to frame this as self-defense which just shows that you have no idea what this term means. Legally or logically. And secondly, it is as biff says. When you normalize gunning people down you might just realize that the other side is better armed, more efficient AND more ruthless than you are. For an armed conflict or a revolution you need the support of the population. For some reason I doubt you have that in a country where a majority of voters just elected Donald Trump. I know very well what self-defense means, it's a topic I've cared about for many years. If there's a direct threat to someone's life, you're allowed to kill the attacker. In this instance the government failed to uphold the law that would protect people from the attacking CEO. Thus the right extends to people to protect themselves. The CEO is the threat to people's lives, the authorities are not doing their job, and thus people are right to eliminate the threat by any means necessary. You clearly don't know what self-defense means. Or rather, you have redefined it yourself in such a way that nobody agrees with you.Self-defense is a legal justification if someone is in the act of threatening your life (or your loved ones) in a way that only immediate violence can prevent. + Show Spoiler +Shooting a CEO who is heading to a business meeting is not self-defense, it's at best vigilantism.
As I have said before, I shed no tears for the death of this piece of shit CEO. But that doesn't make it self-defense, nor does it justify murdering people.
And this isn't the first time your unhinged "morality" crops up in this thread. I urgently suggest you talk to a professional before you decide to take "self-defense" into your own hands... Israel's slaughter of 10's of thousands of women and children has done far more to redefine "self-defense" in the west than Magic ever could. Same goes for the invasion of Iraq and other examples like irrationally frightened cops. The point is that this notion that killing CEOs would be breaking some taboo about harming people out of self-interest is wrong. It'd just make CEOs more vulnerable like the rest of us to a system that is dependent on harming people out of self-interest/greed. I don't really know what Israel has to do with it, other than your salient point that the people calling foul and crying sympathy for this shithead millionair are often the same people who look at thousands of palestinians and say that their death is justified because of October 7. But that was in another thread, and this point you're trying to make now seems a lot less salient. Israel claiming "self-defense" as justification is nothing new, but it also isn't applicable: Israel is a country. The US claimed self-defense as their casus belli against Afghanistan. It was equally nonsensical then as it is for Israel now. Hell, Russia probably claimed self-defense for the Chechen wars, and I can probably extend that sham far further back if I could be arsed to. But that is exactly that: a casus belli, trumped up or not, is literally a cause to go to war. It isn't literal self-defense, nor does anybody understand it to be. And speaking of war, we already have a word that covers the Brian Thompson situation perfectly well: class warfare. Something you of all people should be familiar with. I would absolutely not have quibbled if MP merely claimed that Brian Thompson deserved to die, because he was a warrior waging class warfare on the proletariat, killing hundreds/thousands with the swipe of a pen, and he got what was coming for him. That's a justification I have zero issue with. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand people think that way. But personal "self defense" is just absurd bollocks, coming from someone who earlier this year was arguing extreme pacifism (in an equally absurd situation). I do admit, that I should probably just have DM'd MP rather than posting this publicly in the thread, but what's done is done. I never spouted pacifism. You didn't understand the argument back then, and you still don't. You never listened to what I said and called me an extremist. Also, you still have the same opportunity as before to simply DM me so you can learn about my views instead of fabricating some nonsense that I never said. We don‘t use the p-word here. Watch that mouth. I was just leaving. While I support the fight against massive inequality, I don‘t really see why one has to write an essay on why it‘s not okay to just execute people you don‘t like. Protesting enough can do the trick. When was the last time protesting led to any meaningful change in the US? Did the BLM or occupy Wall Street folks simply not protest enough?
How do you define meaningful change? BLM led to more law enforcement / medical personnel facing prosecution, more laws holding police accountable, as well as tertiary gains that resulted from America becoming more race conscious, i.e. DEI, affirmative action. I guess you could just dismiss this all as non-meaningful though.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 13:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 12:25 WombaT wrote:
BLM feels more explicable, it became a very partisan, splitting issue and that diffused it somewhat. A pity IMO for sure, but one I can kinda understand. Your ‘there is no racism anymore’ or your ‘we think there is racism but don’t express your dissatisfaction like that’ types kinda collectively neutered it.
BLM didn’t do nothing, and I think it set things culturally to a degree. In practical immediate terms it basically got the likes of Chauvin prosecuted but no wider reforms. The Chicago woman who founded BLM Canada defrauded the U of Toronto Students Union for $277,000. When Sami Yatim was murdered BLM did nothing. I asked a bunch of BLMTO people about Wade Lawson. The people in BLMTO should have extensive knowledge of his case. No one knew anything about him. BLM is useless. https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/12/utsu-settles-lawsuit-with-sandra-hudson/I'd say Barry Scheck has done far more than BLM.
The actual cause that got people out on the streets wasn’t BLM as a formal organisation, it was a central resonant theme that people agreed with, broadly speaking. BLM as a movement and BLM as a formal organisation are two quite different beasts.
If individuals within BLM are shit, does it really detract from the overall idea?
Of course everything in terms of political activism is seemingly useless in your worldview because people who don’t like things in their country can just move country. Those who dislike the conditions of their job can just move job.
You seem to just not fundamentally understand other potential avenues might be available
|
On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendmentShow nested quote +
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen.
You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship."
Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution.
Due to the very useful phrase ‘all persons born… in the United States’, no. There’s none of that wriggle room, unless one just invents it and engages in nonsense.
It’s as unambiguous as it gets, get a constitutional amendment or go home.
And if you somehow convince the Supreme Court to go along with this, well hey it’s yet more evidence that the ostensible rule of law, precedent and principle is bollocks
|
Norway28528 Posts
On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution.
Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats.
|
On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats.
We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous.
For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
|
On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Well, if "illegals" are *not* subject to jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that open a larger can of worms? We allow diplomats to be immune to local laws as a necessary exception in order to enable diplomacy with countries who have wildly different local laws. Saying "anybody not legally residing in the US is not subject to local laws" extends the concept of diplomatic immunity to tourists and really any other foreigner. It'd be insane.
|
On December 09 2024 17:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Well, if "illegals" are *not* subject to jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that open a larger can of worms? We allow diplomats to be immune to local laws as a necessary exception in order to enable diplomacy with countries who have wildly different local laws. Saying "anybody not legally residing in the US is not subject to local laws" extends the concept of diplomatic immunity to tourists and really any other foreigner. It'd be insane.
Yeah I was just about to say, I don't want to reach too far past his incredibly werid example but even then, yes that would qualify that they would be us citizens under the constitution. I don't know why conservatives never use their logic for the immediate next step but it's an incredibly common theme.
It would be insane to then give an out to every illegal immigrant to suddenly not be able to commit any sort of crimes up to and including entering the United states. I don't know how you'll be able to deport them when they wouldn't be doing anything wrong under this new interpretation of their legal status. You can't be here illegally if you're not here illegally. They would effectively become extra-legal residents of the United States of America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
