Frankly, any other Supreme Court would have declined to hear this birthright case - the executive order is clearly unconstitutional as adjudicated by the lower courts. However, there are 6 Supreme Court justices who have one significant goal: eliminate the 14th amendment and the rights of women, LBQT, non-Christians and immigrants. That said, my guess is these 6 seditious justices plan to limit birth right citizenship to those persons "lawfully" in the United States . . . Good luck defining “lawfully.”
My understanding is that one of the arguments being used against 14A protection is based on the language that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." So what I want to know is this: if they think it's not applicable to someone whose parents are not citizens, wouldn't that mean the person is also able to break any federal laws with impunity because they don't apply to that person? Seems like DOJ wants to have it both ways.
This case should have been automatically rejected, and that it wasn't scares the hell out of me. It's not like they need to settle conflicting opinions!
FWIW my understanding is that the provision "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to say that US-born children of foreign ambassadors are not citizens of the US as they would usually be considered citizens of the particular ambassador's country. Recall that in a number of ways, foreign embassies are legally regarded as the territory of that nation.
Hate to tell you but you subscribed to a newsletter called Law Dork.
Honestly, if that's your view, I don't really know why you're here. I'm glad you're here, and hopefully you're getting something from my writing, but, I truly don't get why someone who actually thinks that would be here.
If, instead, this is just a throwaway nihilistic comment, I've spent the past 10+ months explaining why this viewpoint is both wrong — as seen by results — and dangerous — because it empowers fascists — so, read through the "democracy" archives. https://www.lawdork.com/t/democracy
Frankly, any other Supreme Court would have declined to hear this birthright case - the executive order is clearly unconstitutional as adjudicated by the lower courts. However, there are 6 Supreme Court justices who have one significant goal: eliminate the 14th amendment and the rights of women, LBQT, non-Christians and immigrants. That said, my guess is these 6 seditious justices plan to limit birth right citizenship to those persons "lawfully" in the United States . . . Good luck defining “lawfully.”
By gum they did it again—a 2-1 R panel on a high profile case in a 7-4 D court.
Yes, but, we've known they had this. This was merits consideration. (The oral argument was back in May.)
True that. Could plaintiffs have asked for initial hearing en banc?
Neomi Rah-rah …
Thank you, Chris. It was
quite a week.
Nothing endures that is
not fought for, be it by
protest, at the ballot
box, or in the courts.
American democracy — an ongoing segment on “Peewee’s Playhouse”!
My understanding is that one of the arguments being used against 14A protection is based on the language that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." So what I want to know is this: if they think it's not applicable to someone whose parents are not citizens, wouldn't that mean the person is also able to break any federal laws with impunity because they don't apply to that person? Seems like DOJ wants to have it both ways.
This case should have been automatically rejected, and that it wasn't scares the hell out of me. It's not like they need to settle conflicting opinions!
FWIW my understanding is that the provision "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to say that US-born children of foreign ambassadors are not citizens of the US as they would usually be considered citizens of the particular ambassador's country. Recall that in a number of ways, foreign embassies are legally regarded as the territory of that nation.
That's absolutely correct, but they're trying to extend the meaning well beyond that.
Hate to tell you but the rule of law has been over for some time now-
Hate to tell you but you subscribed to a newsletter called Law Dork.
Honestly, if that's your view, I don't really know why you're here. I'm glad you're here, and hopefully you're getting something from my writing, but, I truly don't get why someone who actually thinks that would be here.
If, instead, this is just a throwaway nihilistic comment, I've spent the past 10+ months explaining why this viewpoint is both wrong — as seen by results — and dangerous — because it empowers fascists — so, read through the "democracy" archives. https://www.lawdork.com/t/democracy