Why the Supreme Court should find for the Judges power, and Birthright Citizenship.

[SavannahMann]

The problem with your theory is that there is more than one judge, and they may issue conflicting orders. What then?

Okay. Back to Civics class I guess.

Let’s say Judge Smith for the District of Columbia courts finds that Trump’s policy is Unconstitutional. He issues a national Stay to prevent its being implemented.

Judge Jones in the District of Fort Worth can’t issue a separate ruling. Only the Appeals Court can overrule.

Unless we are dumb enough to go with the different judge for every district approach. That by the way is possible.

Now. In that case let’s use masks for a pandemic. This should be fun. You live in the district which is covered by the decision of Judge Buel in this scenario. Judge Buel says it is unconstitutional to require people to wear masks. You happily drive to visit a friend. Now you’ve crossed over to the next district and Judge Davis says it is constitutional and anyone not wearing a mask can be fined.

All you did in that scenario is drive from one town to the next and cross an invisible line into the next Federal Court District.

The many judges approach creates a situation above. Where each district has different laws until each case is addressed by the Appeals Court. Give that a few months even on an emergency basis for every district approach. One judge. One path of appeal is faster, and makes it a lot more sane. Imagine traveling and not knowing if you have to wear a mask or not. Maybe there will be a decision from the Appeals Court before you appear before the judge to answer for the crime. Maybe not.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Okay. Back to Civics class I guess.

Let’s say Judge Smith for the District of Columbia courts finds that Trump’s policy is Unconstitutional. He issues a national Stay to prevent its being implemented.

Judge Jones in the District of Fort Worth can’t issue a separate ruling. Only the Appeals Court can overrule.

This is profoundly wrong. So much for your civics prowess.

Hell, there is no "District of Fort Worth," and TX and DC are in two totally different appellate circuits.

 

[SavannahMann]

This is profoundly wrong. So much for your civics prowess.

Hell, there is no "District of Fort Worth," and TX and DC are in two totally different appellate circuits.

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.

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.

 

[rahl]

I did this already, with two examples and an analogy that show the difference between territorial and complete jurisdiction.


This one:



The concept of territorial vs. complete (personal) jurisdiction has been around for a long time, and continues to be influential. Just two years ago an appeals court ruled a judgement against the Palestinian Liberation Organization was invalid -- the law upon which the suit was based could not reach the activities of the PLO because the PLO could not be brought under the jurisdiction of the United States, even though Congress intended to do so with the statute at issue (Fuld v. PLO is currently on appeal the the US Supreme Court, has been argued, but not yet decided). This is is spite of the fact that the PLO has offices in the US (which was the initial basis of the assertion that the US had jurisdiction over them).


I find conflicting sources. Some say he authored only the citizenship clause of the Civil RIghts Act, some say he was instrumental to both. I've stopped citing him as I did in that post, though the sentiment remains the same. A person who certainly did have a hand in the citizenship clause, however, was Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan. His thoughts were even clearer than Trumbull's:
View attachment 67572408



Yes. That's the point. They are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, wherever they are.

We have been over this. There is no such thing as “partial” vs “complete” jurisdiction. Every single person on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction with the sole exception being diplomats with immunity. Allegiance is completely meaningless. Immigration status is completely meaningless. The court has consistently and repeatedly told you this.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I whipped it out as an example.

If you're going to whip out an example to give other people a lesson in civics, you ought to at least TRY to get it right.

 

[SavannahMann]

If you're going to whip out an example to give other people a lesson in civics, you ought to at least TRY to get it right.

Ignoring the point that proves your assertion is wrong. Cutting my reply is kind of a kindergartner move isn’t it?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Ignoring the point that proves your assertion is wrong. Cutting my reply is kind of a kindergartner move isn’t it?

My point was that you are lecturing people about civics, but don't have a clue about them yourself. So your first sentence was sufficient. I've learned from experience that there is usually no point in continuing to read a comment on this forum after encountering the first utterly wrong statement in that comment. Yours is no different, except now I know that you backtracked on your initial hypothetical, and in so doing, wiped out any possible meaning it could have.

Worst of all, you're pretending that this issue isn't one that is hotly debated among the top legal scholars in the country, as if there's only one simple obvious answer. Another indication that you are clueless about anything beyond Schoolhouse Rock civics.

 

[rahl]

My point was that you are lecturing people about civics, but don't have a clue about them yourself. So your first sentence was sufficient. I've learned from experience that there is usually no point in continuing to read a comment on this forum after encountering the first utterly wrong statement in that comment. Yours is no different, except now I know that you backtracked on your initial hypothetical, and in so doing, wiped out any possible meaning it could have.

Worst of all, you're pretending that this issue isn't one that is hotly debated among the top legal scholars in the country, as if there's only one simple obvious answer. Another indication that you are clueless about anything beyond Schoolhouse Rock civics.

Federal district courts ruling on federal law applies nationwide. This is basic middle school civics. Where are you getting confused?

 

[Lursa]

My point was that you are lecturing people about civics, but don't have a clue about them yourself. So your first sentence was sufficient. I've learned from experience that there is usually no point in continuing to read a comment on this forum after encountering the first utterly wrong statement in that comment. Yours is no different, except now I know that you backtracked on your initial hypothetical, and in so doing, wiped out any possible meaning it could have.

Worst of all, you're pretending that this issue isn't one that is hotly debated among the top legal scholars in the country, as if there's only one simple obvious answer. Another indication that you are clueless about anything beyond Schoolhouse Rock civics.

Which is being "hotly debated?"

The value of birthright citizenship and should the US continue with this or change it (implied: by the proper legal process)?​

​

--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?​

Can you please link to some of these debates?

 

[Ethel2]

My point was that you are lecturing people about civics, but don't have a clue about them yourself. So your first sentence was sufficient. I've learned from experience that there is usually no point in continuing to read a comment on this forum after encountering the first utterly wrong statement in that comment. Yours is no different, except now I know that you backtracked on your initial hypothetical, and in so doing, wiped out any possible meaning it could have.

Worst of all, you're pretending that this issue isn't one that is hotly debated among the top legal scholars in the country, as if there's only one simple obvious answer. Another indication that you are clueless about anything beyond Schoolhouse Rock civics.

There is no debate other than in the minds of MAGATS whose brains read like a box of scrabble letters anyway.
The constitution is crystal clear on the issue. Anyone born here is a citizen (with rare exceptions). That’s it. Now I don’t particularly like the rule but I accept it. It’s the law. You would do well to accept it too.

 

[Noodlegawd]

There is no debate other than in the minds of MAGATS whose brains read like a box of scrabble letters anyway.
The constitution is crystal clear on the issue. Anyone born here is a citizen (with rare exceptions). That’s it. Now I don’t particularly like the rule but I accept it. It’s the law. You would do well to accept it too.

Yikes, you're not talking about the same topic and yet you're yapping about other people with brains like a box of scrabble letters. How precious.

 

[Ethel2]

Yikes, you're not talking about the same topic and yet you're yapping about other people with brains like a box of scrabble letters. How precious.

Trouble reading the OP?
Again?
I’ll help you sort out your seven letters:

“

Why the Supreme Court should find for the Judges power, and Birthright Citizenship. ”​

 

[Athanasius68]

Okay. Back to Civics class I guess.

Let’s say Judge Smith for the District of Columbia courts finds that Trump’s policy is Unconstitutional. He issues a national Stay to prevent its being implemented.

Judge Jones in the District of Fort Worth can’t issue a separate ruling. Only the Appeals Court can overrule.

Unless we are dumb enough to go with the different judge for every district approach. That by the way is possible.

Now. In that case let’s use masks for a pandemic. This should be fun. You live in the district which is covered by the decision of Judge Buel in this scenario. Judge Buel says it is unconstitutional to require people to wear masks. You happily drive to visit a friend. Now you’ve crossed over to the next district and Judge Davis says it is constitutional and anyone not wearing a mask can be fined.

All you did in that scenario is drive from one town to the next and cross an invisible line into the next Federal Court District.

The many judges approach creates a situation above. Where each district has different laws until each case is addressed by the Appeals Court. Give that a few months even on an emergency basis for every district approach. One judge. One path of appeal is faster, and makes it a lot more sane. Imagine traveling and not knowing if you have to wear a mask or not. Maybe there will be a decision from the Appeals Court before you appear before the judge to answer for the crime. Maybe not.

Ok-- so when Judge Cannon ruled that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed as special prosecutor and dismissed the charges he brought against Trump in the south Florida district, it meant that Judge Chutkan in the DC district was required to dismiss the charges Smith brought against Trump in that district?
But Judge Chutkan never actually did. Why not?

It's real simple: Judge Cannon has no authority over Judge Chutkan. Indeed, the DC circuit had already ruled that Smith's appt. was constitutional.
But guess what: Judge Cannon is a judge in the 11 circuit, and so is not bound by a decision by the DC circuit.
The only national court here is SCOTUS, and I guess these tax courts.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Trouble reading the OP?

Trouble reading the half dozen posts in the conversation into which you stuck your nose?

 

[Ethel2]

Trouble reading the half dozen posts in the conversation into which you stuck your nose?

Trouble spelling words with your lettters?
I feel free to comment on the OP whenever I please. I don’t need your permission.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Trouble spelling words with your lettters?
I feel free to comment on the OP whenever I please. I don’t need your permission.

So brave. So powerful.

If you wanted to comment on the OP, you would have responded to the OP instead of derping your way into a conversation that had nothing to do with your response. A normal person would just accept that they messed up and move on.

 

[Ethel2]

So brave. So powerful.

If you wanted to comment on the OP, you would have responded to the OP instead of derping your way into a conversation that had nothing to do with your response. A normal person would just accept that they messed up and move on.

You’re proving my point about the scrabble letters. You realize that-right?
Focusing on the topic at hand is always correct.

 

[Noodlegawd]

You’re proving my point about the scrabble letters. You realize that-right?
Focusing on the topic at hand is always correct.

I realize that's what you think, but then again you can't even keep two different topics straight. So your point is irrelevant, on multiple levels.

 

[Rich2018]

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".

 

[Ethel2]

I realize that's what you think, but then again you can't even keep two different topics straight. So your point is irrelevant, on multiple levels.

It is always appropriate to comment on the OP. It’s called “keeping on topic”. Ever heard of it?
Furthermore any conversation on this forum is public, not private. You want a private concert the pm route. Otherwise you will have to accept the fact that others may enter your conversation at any time without your permission.

 

[Noodlegawd]

It is always appropriate to comment on the OP. It’s called “keeping on topic”. Ever heard of it?
Furthermore any conversation on this forum is public, not private. You want a private concert the pm route. Otherwise you will have to accept the fact that others may enter your conversation at any time without your permission.

Yes, you're free to say whatever you want, to whomever you want, at any time, no matter how stupid it is. That doesn't change the fact that you derped your way half a dozen posts deep into a discussion about nationwide injunctions, thinking we were talking about birthright citizenship. Watching you try to squirm out of that with "I can say whatever I want if it's related to one of the OP's topics" is pretty funny. The fact that you're still doubling down is even more hilarious.

 

[Ethel2]

Yes, you're free to say whatever you want, to whomever you want, at any time, no matter how stupid it is. That doesn't change the fact that you derped your way half a dozen posts deep into a discussion about nationwide injunctions, thinking we were talking about birthright citizenship. Watching you try to squirm out of that with "I can say whatever I want if it's related to one of the OP's topics" is pretty funny. The fact that you're still doubling down is even more hilarious.

Choose seven letters. I’ll help you spell a word

 

[Lursa]

My point was that you are lecturing people about civics, but don't have a clue about them yourself. So your first sentence was sufficient. I've learned from experience that there is usually no point in continuing to read a comment on this forum after encountering the first utterly wrong statement in that comment. Yours is no different, except now I know that you backtracked on your initial hypothetical, and in so doing, wiped out any possible meaning it could have.

Worst of all, you're pretending that this issue isn't one that is hotly debated among the top legal scholars in the country, as if there's only one simple obvious answer. Another indication that you are clueless about anything beyond Schoolhouse Rock civics.

Which is being "hotly debated?"

The value of birthright citizenship and should the US continue with this or change it (implied: by the proper legal process)?​

--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?​

Can you please link to some of these debates?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Refuted. That example failed, and a couple of us showed why. Did you think that just coming back after a several days and typing "yes I did!" would mean anything?

Come on. In any case, either restate stuff in context or just admit you cant let it go and hope that time and distance will make it all go away.



Yes, because the use of it was new except in the context of this issue in these threads. That was the context of my statement. Look how desperate you are for a gotcha tho...really pathetic and still fails.



The PLO "could not be brought under the jurisdiction of the US." It is neither a person or a citizen nor an American org. Just because they have offices in the US means we'd have jurisdiction over the PLO (Holy shit )

Did you even read the links in your Wiki article? Try reading the link for "personal jurisdiction."

Thousands of businesses and franchises have American offices, doesnt mean we have jurisdiction over what those parent organizations do in other countries

Nowhere is "territorial" and "complete" defined in your citation. You are still making crap up.



That's right, it's not a valid point then.



Let me know, in a week or so when you can define complete and partial jurisdictions. Sorry, your interim drive-bys pretty much showed where you're coming from here.

Look, this isn't my theory. It's a theory that goes back to the drafting and passage of the 14th amendment. I've explained it to you, multiple times. You either don't get it or don't believe it, possibly both. I don't see any reason to think explaining it to you again will change that. Good day.

Why should I expect honesty or legitimate info now?

I suppose it's easier to dismiss someone's arguments as dishonest with no evidence of dishonesty. Pathetic, but easier.

 

[Lursa]

Look, this isn't my theory. It's a theory that goes back to the drafting and passage of the 14th amendment. I've explained it to you, multiple times. You either don't get it or don't believe it, possibly both. I don't see any reason to think explaining it to you again will change that. Good day.

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.

I suppose it's easier to dismiss someone's arguments as dishonest with no evidence of dishonesty. Pathetic, but easier.

Yeah, after the snarky drive bys, why should I expend more effort repeating myself?