gearboxphilly 🇺🇦 🇮🇱

@Salamerh1 Landsman never should have killed off Monty. Second season is boring without him.

The Most Brutal Truth Ever Spoken About Business

@Arrogance_0024 NATO Article 5 only applies in a specific area covering Europe, North Atlantic. That's why the UK did not invoke article 5 when the Falkland Islands were invaded.

Unpopular take: the US lost the war in Vietnam because NATO didn't help.

@DTM_Woodworks Obama would have never appointed such an incompetent person in the first place. Obama kept the very competent Robert Gates as SecDef for the first 18 months of his administration; he retired from the position after 18 months; Obama wanted him to stay on.

Obama would have fired Hegseth by now!

@shipwreckedcrew This is false. Obama relieved 3 officers of general rank. The others were due normal retirements, while some were misconduct related with no direct involvement of Obama.

Barack Obama fired nearly 200 Generals and Admirals who had risen through the ranks to earn those positions DURING WARTIME. President Trump is firing Generals who rose through up through the ranks to their positions via DEI during peacetime.

@LeadingReport Under what authority does the president have to issue such an EO?

BREAKING: President Trump signs college sports executive order. • Athletes can only transfer schools one time before they graduate without having to sit out a season. • Athletes can only play up to 5 seasons in a 5 year window.

@MaMoMVPY Trump wants to nuke Iran; they're purging the officers who would resist

Something worse than land troops.

@Subresident763 @Eyes_wideopentv Trump is doing the coup, not a coup to get rid of trump Close Congress.; round up the Democrats and any GOP he considers unreliable; declare martial law; detail the SC justices; send troops to detail Dem governors. He's purging the military of any officers who will resist.

@Eyes_wideopentv That would be a mistake. Even people like me who hate Trump and the war would rise up. The way to do it is impeachment.

I fear that a military coup in the US might be in the cards in the not so distant future

@mustangeroo @HansMahncke You're not worth anymore effort

@gearboxphilly @HansMahncke You think it takes going to the Supreme Court to get an injunction against a customs official? It wasn’t even a unanimous decision!Happened again to Wong in 1901 - 33 years and a SC case after it was “settled” by the 14A.

Justice Thomas was the only one who asked the obvious question: what is the common thread among the recognized exceptions to the 14th Amendment, namely diplomats, enemy forces, and Native Americans? The respondent’s lawyer offered this word-salad answer: “So, as I just said, all of the exceptions involve situations where that U.S.-born child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because that extraterritoriality, the fiction of extraterritoriality, the interaction of another sovereign between the United States’ jurisdiction and that person applies to the child as well as to the parent.” What she seems to be getting at is that these categories involve some form of competing sovereign allegiance, even when the person is physically present in the United States. That may make sense for diplomats and enemy combatants, but it becomes far more muddled with respect to Native Americans, over whom the U.S. government did exercise jurisdiction. At best, it was a mixed and evolving situation. And that is precisely the point. There are modern analogues that fit this framework at least as well, if not better. For example, Chinese citizens are subject to legal obligations to the Chinese state, including intelligence cooperation, regardless of where they are in China or anywhere else. Other countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Greece, and Iran maintain strict extraterritorial conscription laws, meaning their citizens remain legally bound to serve even if they were born and live in the United States. If anything, those cases are cleaner examples of ongoing sovereign obligation than the historical status of Native Americans, who were physically present within the United States and still not fully covered at the time. Unfortunately, none of this was seriously explored during oral argument.

@SouthPoint1000 Trump's wants to nuke Iran.

My suspicion is that all over Washington people are realizing that Trump and Hegseth are totally out of control, and have led us into a chaotic situation and that it is likely to get worse, far worse, with almost 3 years remaining the results could be catastrophic.

@mustangeroo @HansMahncke WKA needed to go to court and eventually to the SC because a racist official denied him entry back in the US after he went to visit relatives in China. Are you really that obtuse to think that officials wouldn't violate the law?

@gearboxphilly @HansMahncke If it wasn’t what they intended to do why did Wong Kim Ark need to go to the Supreme Court? It was obviously intended to overturn Dred Scott and was written broadly to ensure opponents of emancipation couldn’t undo it.

@Brodido3214 @tommysantos14 It's a two prong test: being born in the territory of the US AND being subject to its jurisdiction.

@tommysantos14 Were this the definition then it would have been redundant to state it. Every person this would apply to is on American soil. If under the jurisdiction of simply meant being on American soil they would not have included that line. The intended definition was having allegiance.

Without fail, whenever the topic of birthright citizenship comes up and we begin debating the 14th Amendment all over again, the level of sheer stupidity and hallucination in my replies makes me weep for the future of this country. Stupidity, because we have this massive thing called "The Internet" where anyone with basic typing, research, and comprehension skills can confirm if the things they believe are true or not, and there is a large part of this country that refuses to use it. Hallucination, because the number of those same people who have become perfectly comfortable inventing something in their heads and spewing it as fact - with complete confidence - is way too high for us to survive as the world's largest superpower. The definitions MAGA concocts for the word "jurisdiction" alone are something else. I'm just going to start replying with this image from now on. MAGA, how do you all function at work?!?

@EthanLevins2 They're planning to declare martial law after they lose badly in midterms

EVEN MORE Generals are being fired! What the hell is going on?

@JAndrewLauer @HansMahncke "indians not taxed"

@HansMahncke Jurisdiction for purposes of the 14th amendment doesn’t mean power to do things to you if you’re convicted of committing a crime. It means power to do things to you simply because of who you are, like compel you to serve in the military or on a jury or to pay taxes, etc..

@mustangeroo @HansMahncke If that's what the framers of the 14A meant to do why didn't just write that. But they didn't do that and the debate shows they had intentions to make it broad, not just covering former slaves

@HansMahncke The 14A was never meant to create constitutional birthright citizenship. It was intended to make former slaves, and only former slaves, citizens.

@SavinTheBees Preparation for the coup. When he loses big and beautiful the midterms, he'll declare martial law. He's putting in place the sycophants he'll need for that.

What’s going on? Why is he cleaning house suddenly lol

@Deshacersele @hunterbaker They torture it by pretending that jurisdiction actually means alligence, or arguing around total jurisdiction, political, legal. The framers of the 14A weren't stupid men; they would have wrote alligence if they had meant alligence. Or qualified jurisdiction if they had wanted.

@hunterbaker How can you torture "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"

I know many conservatives are unhappy with the idea birthright citizenship may survive, but I must confess I prefer going with the more obvious reading of the text rather than teasing and torturing it. If we stuck with that approach, we would never have had Roe v. Wade.

@charlie_savage Don't they realize that at some future date there will a Dem president and the power they are giving you that president? Second order consequences. No they don't; they think Trump will be president for ever

New memo by Trump's 36-year-old OLC chief, Elliot Gaiser, says Congress's Constitutional power to make laws necessary & proper to regulate how the govt works is just a power to "assist" the president--so laws are valid if they increase Trump's power but not if they restrict it.

@JonesMarkLB @CaveatLector @myonlinetrust @adamscochran They do as soon as you return to either the US or relocate to a country with an extradition treaty. Often used for financial crimes, corruption cases

@gearboxphilly @CaveatLector @myonlinetrust @adamscochran the U.S. government can prosecute but they are not actually able to punish that individual while they are outside of the U.S.’ jurisdiction.

That's not what it means. The 14th amendment could have said that you were subject to *ONLY* US jurisdiction. It didn't. Subject to jurisdiction means can we apply laws to you. Easy litmus: * Do we have a right to arrest and detain you if you break a law? Yes = you're subject to our jurisdiction currently.

@JonesMarkLB @CaveatLector @myonlinetrust @adamscochran Should have been more clear: a crime that is a crime in the US but is not a crime in the foreign country. US citizens can be prosecuted for that.

@gearboxphilly @CaveatLector @myonlinetrust @adamscochran “commit an act that is criminal in a foreign country, you can be charged, arrested, prosecuted for, even if the act itself is not criminal in the foreign country” is the act criminal in the foreign country or not? Make up your mind.

@JonesMarkLB @CaveatLector @myonlinetrust @adamscochran The US can make an extradition request. Maybe it will be denied but if you relocate they could try again. Also, commit an act that is criminal in a foreign country, you can be charged, arrested, prosecuted for, even if the act itself is not criminal in the foreign country

@CaveatLector @myonlinetrust @adamscochran …let’s simplify this for you. do you think you are subject to arrest by the U.S. government while in a foreign country for breaking a US law?