I already explained it to you. That you don't like the explanation is evidence of nothing more than that.You're "theories" have been challenged and you've not been able to back them up. See: "complete" jurisdiction for an example.
Now I'm tending toward you just "don't get it."You refused to acknowledge that examples you gave didnt apply (because illegal immigrants in the US are a) by definition here in the US and b) not citizens.)
Of nothing.So just a couple of examples.
the snarky drive bys
I already explained it to you. That you don't like the explanation is evidence of nothing more than that.
Now I'm tending toward you just "don't get it."
Of nothing.
You're "theories" have been challenged and you've not been able to back them up. See: "complete" jurisdiction for an example.
You refused to acknowledge that examples you gave didnt apply (because illegal immigrants in the US are a) by definition here in the US and b) not citizens.)
So just a couple of examples.
Yeah, after the snarky drive bys, why should I expend more effort repeating myself?
Because the Supreme Court issued an interim stay in the deportation cases and allowed the program to be phased out pending final review, it is reasonable to assume that in this case they will either remand the matter for additional fact-finding without a deadline or invoke marginal procedural grounds (standing, ripeness, mootness) to dismiss the substantive issue. Meanwhile, the courts of appeals will allow the Trump administration to continue its program, just as they did in the tariff cases.We’ll begin with the easy one. Birthright Citizenship. That’s what the Amendment says. What part of Any Person is hard to understand?
The harder one. Judges ability to issue an Order that has effect Nationally. Or everywhere if you prefer. That is actually the smarter rule. The idea that Every District should be judged within that district, and only for that district is the recipe for Chaos. Let’s say that the Next President is a Democrat. This Democrat orders all weapons to be turned in. The NRA and other Gun Rights groups would have to file a motion in literally every single district across the nation to put a stop to the obviously unconstitutional order. Then it would be up to that Judge to overturn the orders of the President, or not. So a Judge in Georgia says no, the order is Valid. Now, they have to run to every single Appeals court and get a dozen different rulings. In the meantime, people are going to jail because the Judge had said that it was legal. Weapons are being melted down because the Judge said it was Legal.
The idea that one Judge can issue a proper order that affects everyone when there is a rule or law that is obviously unconstitutional is a good one. This allows one Judge to hear the arguments and make a decision. That decision can be appealed, and one Appeals Court is going to hear it. If you still don’t like the answer you can still send it to the Supremes.
Chief Justice Robert’s seemed to suggest that it could be handled better as a Class Action Lawsuit. Those are the worst ways to deal with an issue. First, you have to identify multiple victims. It should not require that. You should be able to stop an unconstitutional action with not even one victim. If the notional Democrat above issued the order to collect all weapons right away, we shouldn’t need to identify fifty or more people who lost their Second Amendment Rights before we get a Judge to say no. We shouldn’t need affidavits from fifty people about their Rights being violated. We should be able to say hey, this is illegal. Stop it.
One Judge issuing an order is the best way. That Judge seeing the arguments can issue an order telling the Government that they can’t collect those weapons and they can’t prosecute anyone for it. That is what is supposed to happen. When the Government tries to do something Unconstitutional, the Courts are supposed to say No!
Those who say that this makes Judges unelected Kings are full of manure. Something obviously unconstitutional should be stopped immediately and not just in this district or that one. Everywhere. Do you really want to leave your rights up to the whim of some Judge who happens to be local? A Republican in New York might say no, and a Democrat in Texas might say yes. Think about that. One Judge, One Order, and One path of appeals. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than demanding a hundred motions before a hundred judges to affect all the districts doesn’t it?
Different states and districts within them have different laws for example, open carry of a firearm. In AZ in most public spaces it's legal. In NYC its grounds for arrest.I whipped it out as an example. To show how passing from one district to another could result in a very different situation. There are four federal districts in Texas. That state alone could have four different outcomes from each district. One state and four outcomes was the point.
On the contrary, the stupidest way to decide things is to have bitter partisan Democrats flood district courts with more than 200 lawsuits pandering to petty dictators on the district benches. The Constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the laws, not to act as petty dictators in the hope of currying favor for future promotion.I was writing a post not a dissertation Amigo.
The appeals for those four Districts would join with eight others headed for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Want to discuss the decisions of the Thirteen different Courts of Appeals and how that would be different traveling from State to State?
The point I was making stands. The last thing anyone really wants is decisions of national impact being decided in that way.it would be quite literally the stupidest way we could decide things.
The "patriotic thing to do" is to restrict laws and actions to those consistent with the constitution as decided by the courts whose responsibility it is to make sure that happens. Do you have an objection to adhering to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution?Different states and districts within them have different laws for example, open carry of a firearm. In AZ in most public spaces it's legal. In NYC its grounds for arrest.
Just as we have existed from the beginning with states and cities and counties having different laws so too have Federal district judges issued different opinions without dooming the Republic. The SCOTUS is authorized to resolve the differences.
Districts don't allow the same case to be presented to multiple judges in the same district. So, your scenario is false.
On the contrary, the stupidest way to decide things is to have bitter partisan Democrats flood district courts with more than 200 lawsuits pandering to petty dictators on the district benches. The Constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the laws, not to act as petty dictators in the hope of currying favor for future promotion.
Congress has more than adequate authority to curb Presidential abuses of authority. Oh wait, Democrats lost there too. The patriotic thing to do is undermine the election results.
--or--
Does the 14th Amendment exclude children born on US soil of citizens from other nations, here legally or illegally, from being natural born citizens of the US?
You're ignoring five very important words there, but I'm sure you know that.I don't see how you can argue this in the light of the wording of the 14th Amendment.
"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".
I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.
Tested by this rule, Wong in Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed.
I suppose this needs to be posted here, too:
But be prepared for a lengthy read to get to the conclusion.
Restricting findings and actions to Constitutional bounds is a constraint that applies to the courts as well. Thanks to Democrat perversion with 200+ forum shopped lawsuits District courts have self promoted themselves into holding a limitless veto over the Bad Orange Man.The "patriotic thing to do" is to restrict laws and actions to those consistent with the constitution as decided by the courts whose responsibility it is to make sure that happens. Do you have an objection to adhering to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution?
As I have told you over and over again, the Orange turd IS bad.Restricting findings and actions to Constitutional bounds is a constraint that applies to the courts as well. Thanks to Democrat perversion with 200+ forum shopped lawsuits District courts have self promoted themselves into holding a limitless veto over the Bad Orange Man.
Restricting findings and actions to Constitutional bounds is a constraint that applies to the courts as well. Thanks to Democrat perversion with 200+ forum shopped lawsuits District courts have self promoted themselves into holding a limitless veto over the Bad Orange Man.
So sad loser Democrats using the courts to act out their extended Orange Man Bad tantrums. Any thought about what kind of future promoting Federal district courts into a politburo where each judge is empowered to act like the pig in Orwell's Animal House is ignored. Just like the Democrat decision to discard the filibuster for judicial confirmations no thought is given to the future where the ability to file lawsuits before selected judges not elections, will determine the course of the government.As I have told you over and over again, the Orange turd IS bad.
Fortunately we have the judicial system to put some brakes on the felon and he is losing case after case because his overreach in search for dictatorial powers is unconstitutional.
Winning is him being told he cannot levy tariffs on every country in the world because of some fictitious "emergency". Winning is him being told he may not deport people here illegally without due process.
Isn't winning wonderful?
So sad loser Democrats using the courts to act out their extended Orange Man Bad tantrums. Any thought about what kind of future promoting Federal district courts into a politburo where each judge is empowered to act like the pig in Orwell's Animal House is ignored. Just like the Democrat decision to discard the filibuster for judicial confirmations no thought is given to the future where the ability to file lawsuits before selected judges not elections, will determine the course of the government.
Turning the Republic into a judicial tyranny with 644 petty tyrants extending their kingdoms by decree isn't winning.
Awwww….you don’t like the pig in the White House having to abide by the constitution.So sad loser Democrats using the courts to act out their extended Orange Man Bad tantrums. Any thought about what kind of future promoting Federal district courts into a politburo where each judge is empowered to act like the pig in Orwell's Animal House is ignored. Just like the Democrat decision to discard the filibuster for judicial confirmations no thought is given to the future where the ability to file lawsuits before selected judges not elections, will determine the course of the government.
Turning the Republic into a judicial tyranny with 644 petty tyrants extending their kingdoms by decree isn't winning.
We’ll begin with the easy one. Birthright Citizenship. That’s what the Amendment says. What part of Any Person is hard to understand?
The harder one. Judges ability to issue an Order that has effect Nationally. Or everywhere if you prefer. That is actually the smarter rule.
The idea that Every District should be judged within that district, and only for that district is the recipe for Chaos.
Let’s say that the Next President is a Democrat. This Democrat orders all weapons to be turned in. The NRA and other Gun Rights groups would have to file a motion in literally every single district across the nation to put a stop to the obviously unconstitutional order.
Then it would be up to that Judge to overturn the orders of the President, or not. So a Judge in Georgia says no, the order is Valid. Now, they have to run to every single Appeals court and get a dozen different rulings. In the meantime, people are going to jail because the Judge had said that it was legal. Weapons are being melted down because the Judge said it was Legal.
The idea that one Judge can issue a proper order that affects everyone when there is a rule or law that is obviously unconstitutional is a good one. This allows one Judge to hear the arguments and make a decision. That decision can be appealed, and one Appeals Court is going to hear it. If you still don’t like the answer you can still send it to the Supremes.
Chief Justice Robert’s seemed to suggest that it could be handled better as a Class Action Lawsuit. Those are the worst ways to deal with an issue. First, you have to identify multiple victims. It should not require that. You should be able to stop an unconstitutional action with not even one victim. If the notional Democrat above issued the order to collect all weapons right away, we shouldn’t need to identify fifty or more people who lost their Second Amendment Rights before we get a Judge to say no. We shouldn’t need affidavits from fifty people about their Rights being violated. We should be able to say hey, this is illegal. Stop it.
One Judge issuing an order is the best way. That Judge seeing the arguments can issue an order telling the Government that they can’t collect those weapons and they can’t prosecute anyone for it. That is what is supposed to happen. When the Government tries to do something Unconstitutional, the Courts are supposed to say No!
Those who say that this makes Judges unelected Kings are full of manure.
There is an important distinction between the Courts Constitutional duties of interpreting the law and Constitution and the current Democrat orchestrated jihad abusing the judiciary as a political weapon.Quick question here. If the Courts are not the ones to determine what is legal and constitutional, who is supposed to do it?
You’re been shown what those 5 words mean repeatedly.You're ignoring five very important words there, but I'm sure you know that.
So the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says in plain English?
WTF are you talking about?A requirement for U.S. Citizenship is being a person whose mastery of an occupation or profession makes them an existential threat to a cohesive group of ten thousand people or more.
There have been lots of people born within America's borders that never met that requirement. That was largely because of administrative failures. There have also been people who met that requirement who were refused legal immigration because they were too qualified as American citizens and posed a threat to American-born foreigners living in America.
America has largely stopped trying to recruit new Americans. It's shameful.
Imagine if that was every district in the nation. One judge says yes, and they start paying off loans in that area. Another judge rules no, and they don’t in that area.
Until the Appeals Courts rule on each individual case, there is no overruling the judges. And with fifty plus cases, the appeals court will be flooded and swamped. And each one of those cases will get appealed to the Supremes.
One and done is safer, faster, and much more likely to get a quick path on the appeals.
There is an important distinction between the Courts Constitutional duties of interpreting the law and Constitution and the current Democrat orchestrated jihad abusing the judiciary as a political weapon.
The Constitution unambiguously empowers Congress to do the bulk of the work limiting the President. According to the Constitution Congress makes the laws, not judges, Congress makes appropriations, Congress starts the Constitutional amendment process, Congess can override Presidential vetos, and Congress has the power of impeachment. By design Congress has the tools to curb the President and the rest of the executive branch.
Oh but wait, Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress in the 2024 election. Signal for Democrats to compromise? Naw, just pervert the judiciary into a super legislature where we all bow to infallible judhes.
The problem with the denial of Democrats attempting to pervert the courts into a politburo is the shear number of lawsuits filed pleading with forum shopped judges to countermand virtually every action of the Trump administration. If you can count, you can appreciate the tsunami of Democrat lawsuits isn't a defense of the Constitution at all. It's an attempt to destroy it by the imposition of judicial tyranny.The problem with the idiotic claim that the Democrats are launching a legal jihad is that many of the Judges were appointed by Republicans including Trump. Worse for that claim is that the Conservative members of the Supremes have been saying the Judges are right when the cases reach them.
The highest law in the land is the Constitution. Period. When a law or policy violates the Constitution the Judges are supposed to say so. They are supposed to forbid the action that violates the Constitution. They are supposed to do that.
According to Democrats latest tactics we don't have a Constitution anymore. We only have what any jumped up District court judge won't ban with a nationwide injunction. Wrapping this gross political perversion in the Constitution doesn't suddenly transform it into legitimacy.A Judges decision is not based upon democracy. We don’t hold a public vote to decide what the law means on a case by case basis. We have the Constitution first and all other laws must be in compliance with it.
My goodness how the Democrat opinion of judges has changed since the Dobbs decision. Disagree with Democrats and they'll dispatch bands of violent thugs to terrorize your family. Support their agenda to undermine the Bad Orange Man and judges are valiant infallible defenders of the Constitution modern Horatius at the gate.If you don’t like the Judges ruling against you, stop violating the Constitution if you don’t like the Appeals Court ruling against your Democracy driven nonsense, stop violating the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?