By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn’t stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.
Anyone who attempts to enact this will similar be struck down. This is the constitution we’re talking about, not a states thing. Anyone being told this the law now can just file for an immediate injunction to a federal court in one of these states, and that order will still apply because… constitution. Literally any federal judge can shut this down every single time.
She wouldn’t even have grounds to write an opinion on it. It’s the constitution. It would immediately get scrapped. SCROTUS can’t even say anything about it.
In the 1898 case, two justices in their dissent interpreted “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean “exclusively subject to the justification”, and thus the amendment applies only when the person being born would otherwise be stateless.
Now it’s a strange take that requires inserting at least one word, and was settled by the SC in that case the other way, but this SCOTUS doesn’t really mind overturning precedent.
I am hopeful that at least two of the conservative justices balk at effectively having to imagine stuff not written. But if they did side with Trump, what would be the remedy? Easiest path would be to pass a law codifying the current understanding, but with this congress, that isn’t happening.
They are there to interpret the law. The plan isn’t to remove or challenge it, but to change its meaning into however they want. There is no -lawful- means of removing them from power.
Again the constitution isn’t law, but laws are required to adhere to as close to the constitution as possible, and those changes cannot be made by Judges
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It would not be against this text alone to create a 2-tier citizenship depending on whether you are born to US citizens. Since the US federal government is not a state, they can deprive the “not born to US citizens”-tier of their privileges, immunities etc.
They literally can. I don’t know if you’re just ignorant, but the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and decide what it “really” means. If they decide that the 14th only applies to people exclusively under US jurisdiction (like they’ve indicated is the plan) then that’s the way it is. It doesn’t matter how shitty or blatantly wrong their argument is. It only matters what they decide, and whatever they decide becomes de jure fact. There’s no legal method to counter it.
Which clause? I’m not remembering any that covers removal of a justice and I’m not finding it, unless you’re considering this from article 3 section 1 to be what you said: The Judges, bothof the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour… I’m not seeing any mechanism enforcing that “good behavior”, any definition of it, or who would enforce it
If you’re holding out hope that Congress would impeach and remove any Supreme Court Justice, let alone all the ones who need removing, I have a bridge to sell you.
Sadly SCOTUS has some wiggle room here. They get to interpret what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. If a majority view that the parents having no legal standing to be on US soil and that somehow means they aren’t considered to meet that criteria… Well there they go
I do think the portion targeting people with Visas and such couldn’t even possibly stand.
Note that there were SCOTUS justices that already did this in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.
While the majority at that time did not hold it, we know this SCOTUS has no particular regard for precedence.
It excludes far more than diplomats, and that’s what makes this approach so dangerous.
In a “Red Dawn” situation, local police certainly can arrest members of the invading army. “Enemy Combatants” are not subject to the laws of the United States. Enemy combatants cannot be charged with crimes under US law simply for engaging in hostilities. They can be held indefinitely as POWs. They don’t have to involve the judicial system to “repatriate” them to their country of origin, rather than deporting them.
Invading enemy soldiers are not born in the United States. That’s the other important part of the sentence. I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers. To be clear, what I meant is that if you have embassy staff with diplomatic immunity and they have kids while in the US, those children do not get birthright citizenship, because as children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That would hold either, because it would mean that ANY visitor, legal or not, is not subject to any federal laws at all. Not just constitutional…ANY. If that’s their aim, then free for all on Trump and his team.
Expecting them to be consistent in messaging from one subject to the next is an exercise in futility. They don’t even maintain consistency within the same subjects.
They don’t care about the rules or laws or Constitution one bit beyond how they can use it as a club to beat anyone that opposes them.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn’t stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.
Here’s the judge’s order.
Anyone who attempts to enact this will similar be struck down. This is the constitution we’re talking about, not a states thing. Anyone being told this the law now can just file for an immediate injunction to a federal court in one of these states, and that order will still apply because… constitution. Literally any federal judge can shut this down every single time.
“Can” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. What if the federal judge is Aileen Cannon?
She wouldn’t even have grounds to write an opinion on it. It’s the constitution. It would immediately get scrapped. SCROTUS can’t even say anything about it.
Here’s the thing about SCOTUS, they can say.
In the 1898 case, two justices in their dissent interpreted “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean “exclusively subject to the justification”, and thus the amendment applies only when the person being born would otherwise be stateless.
Now it’s a strange take that requires inserting at least one word, and was settled by the SC in that case the other way, but this SCOTUS doesn’t really mind overturning precedent.
I am hopeful that at least two of the conservative justices balk at effectively having to imagine stuff not written. But if they did side with Trump, what would be the remedy? Easiest path would be to pass a law codifying the current understanding, but with this congress, that isn’t happening.
You’re more optomistic than I am.
If SCOTUS attempts to change the constitution, without the required support of congress, then it gives the ok for the American people to remove them.
Technically they haven’t done anything illegal yet
They are there to interpret the law. The plan isn’t to remove or challenge it, but to change its meaning into however they want. There is no -lawful- means of removing them from power.
Again the constitution isn’t law, but laws are required to adhere to as close to the constitution as possible, and those changes cannot be made by Judges
It would not be against this text alone to create a 2-tier citizenship depending on whether you are born to US citizens. Since the US federal government is not a state, they can deprive the “not born to US citizens”-tier of their privileges, immunities etc.
They literally can. I don’t know if you’re just ignorant, but the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and decide what it “really” means. If they decide that the 14th only applies to people exclusively under US jurisdiction (like they’ve indicated is the plan) then that’s the way it is. It doesn’t matter how shitty or blatantly wrong their argument is. It only matters what they decide, and whatever they decide becomes de jure fact. There’s no legal method to counter it.
By what method?
In theory a twelve gauge and a dream.
In practice a civil war which would kill millions and most likely dissolution or heavily decentralize the federal government.
The constitution covers that too
Which clause? I’m not remembering any that covers removal of a justice and I’m not finding it, unless you’re considering this from article 3 section 1 to be what you said:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour… I’m not seeing any mechanism enforcing that “good behavior”, any definition of it, or who would enforce itIf you’re holding out hope that Congress would impeach and remove any Supreme Court Justice, let alone all the ones who need removing, I have a bridge to sell you.
Sadly SCOTUS has some wiggle room here. They get to interpret what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. If a majority view that the parents having no legal standing to be on US soil and that somehow means they aren’t considered to meet that criteria… Well there they go
I do think the portion targeting people with Visas and such couldn’t even possibly stand.
If they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they can’t arrest them. That language is clearly meant to exclude diplomats.
Note that there were SCOTUS justices that already did this in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.
While the majority at that time did not hold it, we know this SCOTUS has no particular regard for precedence.
It excludes far more than diplomats, and that’s what makes this approach so dangerous.
In a “Red Dawn” situation, local police certainly can arrest members of the invading army. “Enemy Combatants” are not subject to the laws of the United States. Enemy combatants cannot be charged with crimes under US law simply for engaging in hostilities. They can be held indefinitely as POWs. They don’t have to involve the judicial system to “repatriate” them to their country of origin, rather than deporting them.
Invading enemy soldiers are not born in the United States. That’s the other important part of the sentence. I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers. To be clear, what I meant is that if you have embassy staff with diplomatic immunity and they have kids while in the US, those children do not get birthright citizenship, because as children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That’s because you’re using a logical, rational definition of “soldier”. Texas isn’t, and neither is Trump.
They are treating immigration as an actual invasion. They are saying that “soldiers” are coming in to the US and having kids.
They haven’t been quiet about what they are doing, but so far, we have been treating it as hyperbole. It isn’t hyperbole. They are acting on it.
That would hold either, because it would mean that ANY visitor, legal or not, is not subject to any federal laws at all. Not just constitutional…ANY. If that’s their aim, then free for all on Trump and his team.
Expecting them to be consistent in messaging from one subject to the next is an exercise in futility. They don’t even maintain consistency within the same subjects.
They don’t care about the rules or laws or Constitution one bit beyond how they can use it as a club to beat anyone that opposes them.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
Never heard of this one. Link?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The dissent is the part to look at for what I fear the SCOTUS of today will latch onto.