gearboxphilly 🇺🇦 🇮🇱

@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?

@RealKahall @erikgroves Wait the meaning is more "controlling"? An amendment is part of the constitution, they are not in any way inferior to the original clauses of the constitution.

You raise a very valid point that the Solicitor missed completely- the meaning applied to the Constitution by the original framers, which is actually MORE CONTROLLING than the drafters of the 14th Amendment. Those drafters would have been relying on the Original meanings and definitions. Common error to believe that the Civil War legally changed the Constitution and its meaning. That is where the most powerful push for cultural change happened, but legally the Constitution and its meaning with all its limitations did not change.

I wish with all my heart and soul that people who argue before the Supreme Court would have to actually be experts on the subject matter that they present. This is NOT the case. I understand that people can have different perspectives on issues, but they should have to KNOW FACTS before they express their differing perspectives upon them. Basic Facts must be required. I would being by asking these questions- 1. What is the purpose of citizenship and why do we make that distinction? 2. How did the drafters of our Constitutional Republic define citizenship in their writings? 3. Why did our drafters of our Constitutional Republic require citizenship for people to hold office? 4. What did our drafters of our Constitutional Republic say about the risks and dangers of Foreign Influence in government? These questions do not have theoretical answers. The answers are absolute and definitive. If the people making the argument s and the decisions do not know these answers then they ARE NOT QUALIFIED!!

@CharlesHughes62 @erikgroves @InvisibleGoril1 @RealKahall Was he referring to the civil rights act of 1866? The 14a was perhaps to make sure that citizenship conferred by the CRA could not then be legislated away by either a future Congress or within any state? Esp as the southern states were restored to the Union.

@erikgroves @InvisibleGoril1 @RealKahall When Senators Howard introduced the 14th’s citizenship clause on May 30th, 1866, he said it was declaratory of existing law.

@mr_ooptimistic @jkimballcook Now that's how the constitution's 2A should have been written.

@gearboxphilly @jkimballcook imo you're not even a little wrong. you ever read 2nd amend equivelent in the george mason VA state constutution?

I'm probably one of a very small number who thinks Heller was right that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective right, but wrong to hold that "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" has no substantive meaning

@BlueBoxDave Where you for or against DACA?

It seems clear that the Supreme Court is going to find that the 250,000 babies born to illegal immigrants each year are our fellow citizens. I posit we must then focus on assimilating them, and making them proud to be American.

@adamscochran Opponents tie themselves in knots with arguments about legal vs political jurisdiction, or that jurisdiction really means alligence. The Senators in 1866 were not stupid men; if they meant alligence they would have written alligence;

If we can apply our laws to you (such as arrest and detain you), you are subject to our jurisdiction. The carve out is written this way, because children of diplomats do not get birthright citizenship as diplomats are *not* subject to our jurisdiction while being in the US. A non-US citizen who is visiting, legally or illegally, is still subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States whilst in this country.

@adamscochran Actually even better 49-49 with 2% going to Trump's so-called board of peace.

@adamscochran This actually a really smart move from Iran. The strait falls within both nations territorial waters. Start charging a toll, shared 50-50 between Iran and Oman.

This is what Iran has proposed where Iran and Oman get control of the Strait and levy a toll. The US has said it’s a non-starter. Iran has said it’s the only thing they’ll agree to. It would bake in higher fuel costs permanently. And this would stop Trump escalating.

@jkimballcook Ok I'll bite, what is the substantive meaning?

@JayCCalhoun @ASFleischman You're correct. Final would have been a better word. Also correct that it's not a textual declaration. One could argue (as is done) that "judicial supremacy" was a power grab via Marbray.

@gearboxphilly @ASFleischman The Constitution doesn't give sole interpretive authority to the Supreme Court.

So why rely on an executive order instead of passing a law?

@RichardHaass Nobody was paying him as much attention as his little childish brain wanted

Totally mystifying why Trump asked for 20 minutes in prime time on the first night of Passover to deliver a nothingburger of a speech that changed not a thing. Makes no sense.

@NathanDahm And SCOTUS would find your bill unconstitutional

For several years I filed a bill that would end birthright citizenship in Oklahoma. It was simple: on the birth certificate it would either say citizen or foreign national depending on if the parent(s) were citizens or not. If SCOTUS screws this up, the States can still ignore them & handle it correctly.

@trash196053474 @plzbepatient Estimated are low 4-5 million people to high 10-15 million people stateless worldwide. .05% to .18% of world population

@plzbepatient It is almost impossible to be stateless. I am quite serious.

If a child has jus sanguinis citizenship to the country of its parents, it makes no sense to give it jus soli citizenship to the United States. There’s some argument to prevent statelessness but that is exceedingly rare

@ASFleischman And if it were to stand, a future president could issue an EO interpreting the 2A and use this ruling in support of that. Second order consequences

@ASFleischman During the oral arguments not one justice brought the fact that trump, via an EO, was basically interpreting the constitution, a job that is the role of the supreme court.