Reply With Quote
Higher education relief which was the most notable. Maybe do a bit of leg work.
...only to IF you take back the House/Senate in 2 years. If it stays ours it will be smooth sailing barring you hunting him again.
Frankly, it will take a miracle.
Higher education relief which was the most notable. Maybe do a bit of leg work.
Well I guess it fits since he mentioned a policy from over 100 years ago during his campaign. I cannot recall what stupid that fat said but it's just more drivel from the care facility called the White House these days.
He complied with the SCOTUS ruling. He had to start all over again with a different regulatory framework which was much slower.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...bt-relief-plan
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ed-under-biden
Dobbs had a very high cost on this court from a credibility standpoint, and given that they continue to have to to address it, it points out why it'll inevitably go the way of "separate but equal" in due time. There's only so many black eyes you can have.
Ultimately, though, Dobbs didn't need to address more ins utional issues, like separation of powers. This goes squarely into that, and if executive dictum is all you need to change the Cons ution, then the SCOTUS would basically be handing out all their own power.
Another way to look at it is, at least the justices won't be targeted by the feral MAGA mob or strangled in their sleep by a mercurial POTUS.
SCOTUS can always go back to enforcing separation of powers if, by some unthinkable misfortune, Democrats should wind up in the White house again.
Well, that's the other issue. If you open the floodgates now, you open it for everybody. I know some people here think the SCOTUS is a bunch of MAGA re s, but that's not really the case, especially when it comes to it's own survival.
History is full of stupid "smart" people who thought they can control the dictator once they've given him full power. Berezovsky was once Russia's richest man and brought Putin to power, it did not end well for him. SCOTUS signed their own irrelevance as soon as they shielded Trump and put him above the law.
Yep, yep, yes, say it louder for the people in the back ...
The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich is one of the all-time great journalistic endeavors, and it goes on and on about just such reasoning in the Weimar republic. Most of those people actually had a better excuse, too - Hindenburg being the President who could rally everyone against anyone. Not many people realize that the Night of the Long Knives was almost directly in response to his posturing about the SA. We don't have such luxuries in the USA.
Okay smart people in the room. Our industries are being closed in the name of climate. We saw Covid strong arm.
Enough complaining bout Orange Man
Why are you against free speech?
it hurts their feelings
they don't like free speech for other people
What industries are you referring to? Name one
during the Depression, about a million people were forced out of the U.S. across the border into Mexico. It wasn't called deportation. It was euphemistically referred to as repatriation, returning people to their native country. But about 60 percent of the people in the Mexican repatriation drive were actually U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.
history teaches us that forcible migration and racial profiling are as American as apple pie, Donald Trump's the living proof
John Bingham on Monsters and Natural-Born Fools
From a speech he gave on October 8, 1867:
[T]hey framed your matchless Cons ution of Government at Philadelphia, known as the Cons ution of the United States.— The word white is not there. The words "natural-born citizen" are there, and the man is a natural-born fool who does not understand that the term "natural-born citizen" implies that citizenship is a birthright. It comes with a man into the world. He has a right to citizenship, no matter what his complexion, upon the spot in which he had his origin; and the man who denies it to him, or attempts to withhold it from him, is simply a monster. When he comes to you with his nostrums you ought to herald his approach with the cry of the old cheating peddler: "This is the genuine old Doctor Jacob Townsend's saraparilla." - [Laughter.]
I think the question of what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." actually means, is going to be settled in the U. S. Supreme Court relatively soon - probably this session.
Continue to argue the point is useless, in this forum. There are actual brilliant legal minds -- on both sides of the issue -- who will be more persuasive in litigating this than you or I. I'm satisfied with agreeing to disagree until those who actually have the power to settle this question have spoken.
You're a ing moron.
Not sure how what I just said makes me a moron but, I'll consider the Cheeto-stained fingers, Mommy-basement-dwelling source.
Your invented definition of "subject to jurisdiction" proves you're a moron.
Not invented. I cited the source -- who happened to be the author of the amendment.
Your tortured interpretation of his simple sentence proves you're a moron.
Or just completely dishonest.
Take your pick.
Well, there are cons utional scholars that, unlike you, don't eat their boogers, that agree with my interpretation. Yes, there are other equally capable cons utional scholars that disagree. That's why it's probably headed to tbe Supreme Court. Not sure, other than because you can't help yourself (impulse control is another sign of immaturity) and must troll me on every thing I post.
I'm willing to wait until this plays out in the courts. I've said as much. Why do you want to keep beating a dead horse? Is your sore?
Which ones?
Which laws and court cases do they cite?
Why are you thinking about my ?
I've read Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center and others. He's probably the most prominent.
The most often-cited case on both sides of the argument is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held Ark was a citizen at birth because he parent were legal immigrants. Cons utionalists on Trump's side of the argument say since the ruling narrowly defined the status of his parents as being legal immigrants, it doesn't apply to illegal aliens. In fact, there are no court cases address the citizenship of children born to illegal aliens which is why it's probably headed to the Supreme Court.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
