- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 53,756
- Reaction score
- 59,252
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
They didn't but it's your world and the rest of us just live here so have at it.
They didn't but it's your world and the rest of us just live here so have at it.The Supremes blocked the invocation of the ACT
No, because their rulings agree with the United States Constitution, rather than attempting to rewrite it to serve the party.
Many. I don't agree with the ruling allowing subversion of free speech of abortion opponents, but recognize that verbal confrontation of those entering and exiting directly in front of these buildings is not protected as it infringes the right of egress to those entering or exiting the establishment. As an example.
Just so I understand (and so does the other person I was discussing this with), did SCOTUS say that the Act was implemented unlawfully or not? Did they say that Trump could not use the AEA?
The SCOTUS majority said the detainees needed more time between notification and removal. They sent the case back to the district court for that court to decide how much time is required between notification and removal. In no way, shape or form did SCOTUS pass judgement on the Constitutionality of the AEA or of Trump's use of the AEA.They said Trump could not use it at this time, and they would consider a more structured appeal later after it was litigated in the lower court levels.
Trump was looking for the Supremes to order the lower courts to drop the matter and free him to resume deportations using the act. The Supremes said no.
So we can't prosecute illegals for crimes committed inside the United States?You are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because you are a citizen of and owe alegiance to them.
The SCOTUS majority said the detainees needed more time between notification and removal. They sent the case back to the district court for that court to decide how much time is required between notification and removal. In no way, shape or form did SCOTUS pass judgement on the Constitutionality of the AEA or of Trump's use of the AEA.
Yes, they did.They didn't but it's your world and the rest of us just live here so have at it.
The SCOTUS majority said the detainees needed more time between notification and removal. They sent the case back to the district court for that court to decide how much time is required between notification and removal. In no way, shape or form did SCOTUS pass judgement on the Constitutionality of the AEA or of Trump's use of the AEA.
The notice, in this specific case, was determined to be insufficient. That doesn't make the invocation of the Act or removal under the Act unconstitutional."The Supreme Court has ruled on the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), specifically regarding its application to Venezuelan nationals in the Northern District of Texas. In a 7-2 vote on May 16, 2025, SCOTUS blocked the Trump administration from deporting these individuals under the AEA while litigation continues. The court found that the notice provided to the individuals before their removal was insufficient to meet due process requirements. "
Insufficient to meet due process requirements is unconstitutional.
If they have an abortion, sure they can.Men cant get charged with having an abortion in a red state either
Never? Like, never ever never?What is "complete" jurisdiction? Cited definition for this distinction please? Never heard of it.
Some parts, yes. Not others.Because we've already solidly established that illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US...right?
If they have an abortion, sure they can.
Never? Like, never ever never?
Some parts, yes. Not others.
Can you try this again, in a more coherent form? I think I'm getting what you're saying, but I'm just unsure enough to ask you to rephrase it.Surely what are called “border jumpers,” “illegals,” “line jumpers,” and “gang members,” are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. as evinced by 1.) subjected and governed by our laws since 2.) arrest, detention, and deportation can and does occur pursuant to our laws and enforcement agencies 2.) some receive(d) TPS 3). A status and protection under DACA 3.) the judicial rulings, including Supreme Court orders recently, stating before deportation they must be given notice of deportation, and the opportunity to contest the deportations, Due Process, as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
Indeed it is the enforcement of our laws in relation to this group of people and lacking immunity from said enforcement and of our laws like diplomats, foreign dignitaries, or the unique facts of Native American Indians in the case of Elkins v Wilkins, a result of being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Took a while but we finally agree on something. Even though you almost blew it by inserting the word 'xenophobe.'Birthright citizenship is clearly defined in the constitution. The proper way to change that if enough xenophobes want to do that is an amendment, not an EO.
No, I didn't.Took a while but we finally agree on something. Even though you almost blew it by inserting the word 'xenophobe.'
Well, Engineer. The way I see this is the original intent of the 14th applied to freed slaves. The children of those slaves when born automatically became U.S. citizens with everything that entailed. Now the wording of the 14th doesn’t specify that. In simple English that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are U.S. citizens except those diplomates etc. which the U.S. doesn’t have jurisdiction. If the SCOTUS goes by plain English in which the 14th was written, they should find in favor of birthright citizenship. But the SCOTUS speaks lawyerese, a language I have no understanding of and is totally incomprehensive to me.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?
Just like people driving a moped aren't charged for going 90 in a 35. Physical impossibilities do not render a person outside the jurisdiction of the UNited States.So then men are not charged with having abortions, but they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US...right? Of course.
Oh, so you have heard of it, contrary to your previous assertion. Okay.Never except when someone in a thread on this subject has tried to use it and never define it.
Owing allegiance to the United States.Where is your cited definition?
Yeah, that was the question. I answered it.Please name some examples of where they're not? The question was
"Because we've already solidly established that illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US...right?"
Just like people driving a moped aren't charged for going 90 in a 35. Physical impossibilities do not render a person outside the jurisdiction of the UNited States.
Oh, so you have heard of it, contrary to your previous assertion. Okay.
Owing allegiance to the United States.
Where is your cited definition?
Yeah, that was the question. I answered it.
But NOW you want specifics. Okay, I can do that, too.
In addition to the aforementioned treason, there's also the scope of the PROTECT Act of 2003. US citizens can be criminally charged for engaging in sex acts with minors abroad, just as they can be charged for doing it in the US, even if the acts are completely legal in the jurisdiction in which they occurred. How can they do this? Because the US citizens are under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and the laws of the United States can reach them anywhere in the world. This jurisdiction does not reach a Canadian citizen who travels to Thailand to engage in such activities. Why? Because we do not have complete jurisdiction over him and our laws cannot reach him when he is outside of the territory of the United States.
Income tax is another point. US citizens are obligated to file a tax return, even if they are living abroad, haven't been in the US for years, and have acumulated no income within them. Persons who are not US citizens and have earned no income in the United States are not required to file a return. Why? Because the United States has complete jurisdiction over expats and not the typical alien abroad.
Would you care for an analogy? If I'm your parent (and you were a minor child), I exercise jurisdiction over you everywhere. I can command you to not curse at your grandmother's house and you are obligated to obey. If you are my co-worker over for a beer and the football game, I can command you to not root for the Packers; because you are in my home you are obligated to obey, but that obligation vanishes at my door. There is jurisdiction that I have because of who you are, and jurisdiction I have because of where you are. Jurisdiction based on who is "complete."
Various courts have ruled over the years that is only one understanding. A child can also be born to an American parent abroad and have birthright citizenship, like Obama.The problem, as I see it, is that the right interprets "natural born citizen" as meaning born in the USA. And, IMO, it does not mean that.
Everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction with the sole exception of diplomats with immunity. There is no such thing as partial or full jurisdiction. We have been over this numerous times.If they have an abortion, sure they can.
Never? Like, never ever never?
Some parts, yes. Not others.
Allegiance has exactly zero legal meaning. It’s completely irrelevant.Owing allegiance to the United States.
There is no such thing as partial or complete jurisdiction. Everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction with the sole exception being diplomats with immunity.Yeah, that was the question. I answered it.
But NOW you want specifics. Okay, I can do that, too.
In addition to the aforementioned treason, there's also the scope of the PROTECT Act of 2003. US citizens can be criminally charged for engaging in sex acts with minors abroad, just as they can be charged for doing it in the US, even if the acts are completely legal in the jurisdiction in which they occurred. How can they do this? Because the US citizens are under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and the laws of the United States can reach them anywhere in the world. This jurisdiction does not reach a Canadian citizen who travels to Thailand to engage in such activities. Why? Because we do not have complete jurisdiction over him and our laws cannot reach him when he is outside of the territory of the United States.
Income tax is another point. US citizens are obligated to file a tax return, even if they are living abroad, haven't been in the US for years, and have acumulated no income within them. Persons who are not US citizens and have earned no income in the United States are not required to file a return. Why? Because the United States has complete jurisdiction over expats and not the typical alien abroad.
Would you care for an analogy? If I'm your parent (and you were a minor child), I exercise jurisdiction over you everywhere. I can command you to not curse at your grandmother's house and you are obligated to obey. If you are my co-worker over for a beer and the football game, I can command you to not root for the Packers; because you are in my home you are obligated to obey, but that obligation vanishes at my door. There is jurisdiction that I have because of who you are, and jurisdiction I have because of where you are. Jurisdiction based on who is "complete."
Various courts have ruled over the years that is only one understanding. A child can also be born to an American parent abroad and have birthright citizenship, like Obama.
If the courts have ruled for decades this is constitutional and it has been so in practice that will be very hard to overturn.
Trumpies can't just take a sharpie and tack on "...unless you're brown" and make it so.
You'll find the declining birthrate does as much good for the economy as Trumps tarrifs...I think the idea is to make people born in the USA, to parents of which neither was a US citizen, not be granted automatic citizenship, and I support that.
The right-wing argues that undocumented immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government as the US government deports them.
Both statements can't be true.
You'll find the declining birthrate does as much good for the economy as Trumps tarrifs...
The US population is growing.
"US population growth rate for 2023 was 0.49%, a 0.12% increase from 2022"
U.S. Population Growth Rate | Historical Chart & Data
Annual population growth rate for year t is the exponential rate of growth of midyear population from year t-1 to t, expressed as a percentage . Population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship.www.macrotrends.net
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?