Will

@tfiiiiine @SaveYourCinema

@SaveYourCinema Abandoning? As in, he’s moving? ..As people do.

JJ Abrams was a MAJOR donor to Karen Bass and now he’s abandoning Los Angeles. Ironic. latimes.com/california/sto…

@myboynoah @csmaddox2008 Of course. As do foreign nationals.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 Thank you. Yes, foreign diplomats obviously owe allegiance to their native lands. The same could be said for active members of foreign militaries.

@LDS_Liberty @elonmusk @NASA The moon doesn’t have any satellites to bounce waves off of. And you can’t send radio waves through the moon.

Wait a minute, so when our astronauts are close to the moon, they’re not going to be able to communicate back home?! We’re not going to have any live feed?! Is this real? I feel like we’re getting played right now. Can anyone confirm this is accurate? @elonmusk? @NASA?

@krillyboy @csmaddox2008 You made the claim that this is an issue on the right, so people doing it on the left are relevant and directly refute your claim. BTW, I didn’t even do what you’re accusing me of, whereas this boomer most certainly is.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 I'm certainly not, in fact I'm focusing in exactly what that means and why the prevailing application of 14A has been in line with this clause

@krillyboy @csmaddox2008 Says the side cutting out “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 Replacing a modifying clause with ellipses or (etc.) seems to be your guys' favorite lie right now

@kelandren3 @JReubenCIark Can I ask what your walking regimen has looked like?

✨I have lost 150 lbs!✨ September 2023 I made a goal for myself. I'm tenacious, but this one area of my life crippled me with fear. So, I went all in. I changed how I ate (no sugar, no bread, no processed food) and I walked. Fear kept me from the gym for a long time, but I feel stronger than ever by going. Still working on that original goal - I'll get there. 💪🏼🤍 Many people have inspired and supported me through example, encouragement and kind words, and I will ALWAYS be grateful. Timeline: 9/2023 - 1/2025 100lbs lost 1/2025 - 4/2026 50lbs lost If I can do this, Anyone can.🫶🏼 #weightlossjourney #weightloss #pcos #gymlife #gymtime #weightlifting #fitnessgoals

@DigitalPastaFan @krillyboy @csmaddox2008 If that were true, Native Americans born off the reservation would have been granted citizenship prior to 1924. They were not. In other words, the precedent set by Native American policy goes against birthright citizenship.

@Normonism @krillyboy @csmaddox2008 No, that’s because tribes and reservations are considered at least semi sovereign and thus not “US soil”.

@krillyboy @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 "All people, excepting American Indians (etc.) can be on US soil but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Correct. And this is the point. Being on US soil =/= being subject to US jurisdiction. This is why the amendment does not grant citizenship on birth alone.

@Normonism @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 American Indians are still, to this day, not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US on reservations, which is why they had to be granted citizenship by statute in 1924.

@krillyboy @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 The amendment itself specifies two conditions: 1. Born or naturalized, and 2. Subject to U.S. Jurisdiction. If they wanted everyone born in the US to be citizens, clause 1 would have sufficed. But they added clause 2. Birth alone is not enough. You must also be a US subject.

@Normonism @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 ALL PARENTAGE WHATEVER If Trumbull and Johnson felt so strongly about a hard exclusion of any other loyalty, maybe they should have included that in the text of the amendment. As is, it does not exclude foreign loyalty of the parents.

@krillyboy @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 Trumbull and Johnson offered additional statements that were not ambiguous.

@Normonism @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 The transcribed speech could just as easily be rendered "foreigners - aliens - who are children of diplomats" It's ambiguous at best and if you're not willing to admit that you're being dishonest

@plasmarob Now we know why the vaults were designed to withstand a nuclear blast.

holy crap the mormons might actually have the ark of the covenant? this has to be a meme

@myboynoah @csmaddox2008 The framers of that amendment offered additional clarification that is very clear.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 Yes, and as noted, he is clearly referring to children of foreign diplomats, which how section 1 has been read since. Even the SG isn’t pinning its argument on this.

@Curi_Christian It’s not contrary. Now what?

Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

@exsnypre @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 The vast majority of foreigners and aliens don't belong to the families of ambassadors, so the claim that these are supposed to be parallel falls flat.

@Normonism @DigitalPastaFan @csmaddox2008 "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" FYI, those words were all directed at a singular group of people. Sometimes people repeat words using synonyms for emphasis.

@myboynoah @csmaddox2008 He declared it on the Senate floor. In the quote above.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 So where is the Federalist Paper for this one? He is clearly referring to children of foreign diplomats. That’s how the amendment is read. If folks want to change that, do the work to amend it.

@myboynoah @csmaddox2008 For the same reason Alexander Hamilton and James Madison published the Federalist Papers instead of putting all of that in the Constitution.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 Yet it didn’t make into the text. Why?

@hicksticks2001 @csmaddox2008 @DigitalPastaFan Grok doesn’t “interpret” anything. It’s a computer that parrots back the most midwit answers—by design.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 @DigitalPastaFan Grok interprets it as synonymous where he is intending to further clarify a thought, not list separate and distinct items. x.com/i/grok/share/6…

@stefanbackstrom @csmaddox2008 The children of slaves did not, in fact, have citizenship. This is why they created the amendment.

@Normonism @csmaddox2008 Who would be covered by the text if not foreigners? It seems weird to give citizenship only to those who already have it.

@Robert_VanceMD @MZHemingway You’re not listening.

@MZHemingway I didn't question the briefs. I questioned your framing.

I attended today's oral argument and while I'm not sure how it will go, it seemed to me the justices engaged seriously with Sauer's arguments. I'd be surprised if they said the 14th Amendment or Kim Wong Ark support today's radical birthright citizenship regime.

@M5squared @AmySwearer No, but they show why bad interpretations that occurred earlier are problematic and need to be reversed.

@AmySwearer Chief Justice Roberts just reminded counsel that consequences and changed circumstances don’t rewrite the text, especially the 14th...

Chief Justice Roberts is getting a lot of praise for his "it's the same Constitution" quip, but it's thoroughly undeserved and the hits against Sauer's comments are nothing but cheap shots. It's obvious to anyone listening in good faith that Sauer wasn't making some living constitution argument or implying judges/the executive can unilaterally update its meaning as society changes. The exchange started with Roberts, unprompted, asking Sauer about specifics on the birth tourism industry. Sauer answered with some data about Chinese companies. Roberts then asked whether Sauer agreed that the widespread nature of birth tourism he just described "has no impact on the legal analysis." Sauer pointed to Scalia's Hamdan dissent and its line of reasoning about how the messy/absurd nature of ensuing consequences is a powerful indication that the Court has butchered its interpretation. Roberts then said "well, [birth tourism] certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century." THIS is when Sauer makes his "we're in a new world now" comment. And it's perfectly reasonable in the context.