why are you saying no and then agreeing with what I said? Do you just have some burning desire to prove how smart you are?
Iâm saying no because I am not wrong. And if you are agreeing with me, why are you saying that Iâm wrong?
you are wrong about one thing. he wonât âtryâ, he will do it. then unless and until its challenged in court, and a court changes it, the law will be that illegal alien progeny are not citizens. might last 5 minutes, might last 5 hours or 5 days; but it will be done.
2 Likes
there is no hypocrisy if one knows English.
an introductory clause does not change the definition of the clause it introduces. it is not a modifier.
âand subject to the jurisdictionâ does modify ââŚborn in the USâ to a subset of only those who are subject.
1 Like
Well as much as it pains me to say this, so far you have been right about everything else connected to this election. So chances are you are right about this.
Now what about the lottery numbers?
He will issue the EO, but that IS only a try. It will immediately be challenged, a stay will be issued by the District Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court will decide against it. And if it technically was in effect for 5 minutes 5 hours or 5 days, that will be undone by the final ruling. Trump will be able to say âI did it as I promised,â but the outcome will be the current status quo as though he did nothing at all.
To do so the S. C. would have to go against previous court rulings, the documented legislative intent of â. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereofâŚâ, the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and common sense.
Why are you so confident the Supreme Court will decide against it when it has already upheld various Executive Orders e.g., Trump v. Hawaii (travel ban), and we are talking about reversing existing âpolicyâ, not law?
Based on what? He didnât do it in 2018.
No, it would be directly and exactly aligned with Plyler v Doe, 1982.
Plyler v Doe dicta, is not binding law
Take a constitutional law class and especially learn the importance of âlegislative intentâ as a controlling factor.
JWK
Youâre wrong.
Plyler v. Doe
In 1981, the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe195 that a Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding state funds from local school districts for the education of children who were not âlegally admittedâ into the United States and by authorizing local school districts to deny enrollment to such children.196 The Court reaffirmed that illegal aliens were âpersonsâ protected by the Fourteenth Amendmentâs Due Process Clause, and concluded that they were also âwithin the jurisdictionâ of the state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.197 It reasoned that the phrase âwithin its jurisdictionâ extends the protection to âanyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State,â and âreaches into every corner of a Stateâs territory.â198 While this case in and of itself did not deal with the Fourteenth Amendmentâs Citizenship Clause, universal birthright citizenship advocates point to a footnote in that opinion containing dicta that invoked the Courtâs decision in
Wong Kim Ark:
You are debunked, once again!
See the light.
Notice you didnât credit your source.
Oh wait! You did!
âSwearerâ 
The vote was 5-4. More interestingly, by a vote of 9-0, the court addressed the meaning of âjurisdictionâ as found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase âsubject to the jurisdictionâ to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.
By a real expert. You sir, are ludicrous.
1 Like
An opinion piece recklessly failing to acknowledge and emphasize the court was called upon to determine if a Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and any comments by the court asserting â⌠and subject to the jurisdiction thereofâŚâ does not bar offspring born to illegal entrants while on American soil from U.S. citizenship upon birth, is dicta and not binding law.
Iâll bet if Johnathan Turley, who I actually have respect for, were asked if the courts comments about the meaning of â⌠and subject to the jurisdiction thereof âŚâ are dicta, and not binding law, Johnathan would acknowledge that distinction in the affirmative.
The numerous debate speeches you post again and again and again and again are not binding law, either.
1 Like
Itâs on his website for a quarter century.
The brown babies stay citizens. Nothing you can do about it MAGA.
There is zero correlation between Trumpâs travel ban EO and one that attempts to circumvent the Constitution.
1 Like
How did you miss this?
"The Court reaffirmed that illegal aliens were âpersonsâ protected by the Fourteenth Amendmentâs Due Process Clause, and concluded that they were also âwithin the jurisdictionâ of the state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.197 It reasoned that the phrase âwithin its jurisdictionâ extends the protection to âanyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State,â and âreaches into every corner of a Stateâs territory.â
1 Like
