*Abolish birth right citizenship for people here on visa violations or here illegally.
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump told "Axios on HBO"
The US Constitution wrote: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.
I'm no legal scholar, but there doesn't seem like a lot of wiggle room there.
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
liebzz wrote:I am pretty sure that on Nov. 5th, on the eve of voting, Trump will declare “by executive order I will abolish homework.”
I think we are a lot more likely to be dealing with false voter fraud claims then anything else, as it begins to sink in that he can’t lie his way to victory
liebzz wrote:I am pretty sure that on Nov. 5th, on the eve of voting, Trump will declare “by executive order I will abolish homework.”
I think we are a lot more likely to be dealing with false voter fraud claims then anything else, as it begins to sink in that he can’t lie his way to victory
In all seriousness, you are 100% correct. Perhaps a callback claiming Democrats bussed a caravan of illegal invaders to the polls to vote, and that we now need to force people to show ID to vote and wouldn’t it be nice if we could charge a fee to vote - MAGA like it’s the 1940s.
McParadigm wrote:It’s just Republican vote turnout. And also a bad election play overall, because support for birthright citizenship has doubled in the last 3-4 years
I wish I shared your confidence.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
i wonder if the latino youth will finally vote en masse given the birthright thing
who's to say he won't take citizenship away from those who have it?
all they need to do is fax instructions to the SCOTUS now
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
But for those of us who have been appellate lawyers, the brief docket entries tell a story. Here’s what we can glean:
The parties and the judges have moved with unusual alacrity. Parties normally have 30 days to appeal a lower court action. The witness here appealed just five days after losing in the district court – and three days later filed a motion before the appellate court to stay the district court’s order. That’s fast.
The appeals court itself responded with remarkable speed, too. One day after getting the witness’s motion, the court gave the special counsel just three days to respond – blindingly short as appellate proceedings go. The special counsel’s papers were filed October 1.
At this point an unspecified procedural flaw seems to have emerged, and on October 3, the appeals court dismissed the appeal. Just two days later, the lower court judge cured the flaw, the witness re-appealed, and by October 10 the witness was once again before appellate court. Thanks to very quick action of all the judges, less than one week was lost due to a flaw that, in other cases, could have taken weeks or months to resolve.
Back before the D.C. Circuit, this case’s very special handling continued. On October 10, the day the case returned to the court, the parties filed a motion for expedited handling, and within two days, the judges had granted their motion and set an accelerated briefing schedule. The witness was given just 11 days to file briefs; the special counsel (presumably) just two weeks to respond; and reply papers one week later, on November 14 (for those paying attention, that’s 8 days after the midterm elections). Oral arguments are set for December 14.
At every level, this matter has commanded the immediate and close attention of the judges involved – suggesting that no ordinary witness and no ordinary issue is involved. But is it the president? The docket sheets give one final – but compelling – clue. When the witness lost the first time in the circuit court (before the quick round-trip to the district court), he unusually petitioned for rehearing en banc – meaning he thought his case was so important that it merited the very unusual action of convening all 10 of the D.C. Circuit judges to review the order. That is itself telling (this witness believes his case demands very special handling), but the order disposing of the petition is even more telling: President Trump’s sole appointee to that court, Gregory Katsas, recused himself
