Red Mosquito

keep us posted

E.H. Ruddock wrote:keep us posted

52 minutes it took him to write this:

Well he’s probably really busy



3 hour work day, starting at 11am. The above is an excerpt from his calendar last week

Quote:
On that day, Trump attended an 11.30am meeting with Kelly — the first commitment of the day...

...spent a further 30 minutes on the phone with unnamed CEOs and speaking at a state leadership conference, and in the evening he received a briefing from senior military leaders before dining with them.

The rest of the day was devoted to executive time, with some free time allotted in huge 165-minute blocks.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/a ... d=12151986

dimejinky99 wrote: The rest of the day was devoted to executive time, with some free time allotted in huge 165-minute blocks.

RDR2

"stuff"

Simple Torture wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:keep us posted

52 minutes it took him to write this:

Fox and Friends at 9:24: Coming up next: Why the president is absolutely right that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it clearly says.

*Trump furiously tweets*

Fox and Friends for next 51 minutes: *Gets distracted by Killary or the evil caravan, did I say caravan...marauding van...no, alien invasion, yeah let's go with that one...that's heading towards the U.S. of A.*

*Trump calls Fox and Friends* "I NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO WHY I CAN OVERRULE THE 14TH AMENDMENT. MAKE SURE THE ANSWER INVOLVES TRASHING DEMS AND INCLUDES THE TERM "ANCHOR BABIES!"

4/5 wrote: Fox and Friends at 9:24: Coming up next: Why the president is absolutely right that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it clearly says.

I realize nobody actually cares about the Constitution anymore, but interpreting the 14th amendment isn't quite as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be.

"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..."

A reasonable claim could be made that illegal immigrants are still subject to the jurisdiction of the nation from which they emigrated. Jacob Howard - the 14th amendment's sponsor in the Senate - was clear that the clause be construed as such:

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no litigation that has made a determination on the matter one way or the other. The relative merits of Trump's EO aside, the matter simply isn't settled.

The bolded portion leaves out the last clause “... who belong to...” which further clarified that it meant ambassadors from outside the US. The individuals Trump is targeting are not likely to be official ambassadors from other nations.

liebzz wrote:The bolded portion leaves out the last clause “... who belong to...” which further clarified that it meant ambassadors from outside the US.

Debatable.

Edit: the Congressional record of the debates for the adoption of the 14th amendment is pretty clear on the matter, Howard and Lyman Trumbull specifically.

--- wrote:Jacob Howard - the 14th amendment's sponsor in the Senate - was clear that the clause be construed as such:

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Popping in to argue against the idea that this is "clear"--the sentence is very strangely constructed, and I think it can be interpreted in at least two ways:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [and] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Or:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The former carves out an exception only for diplomats; the latter is broader and carves out three separate groups that aren't in "every other class." Fucking 19th-century grammar.

McP this morning:

this birthright thing seems like a great way to rally the base

of non-biggotted Independents who represent crucial swing votes

I actually have one of Kruse's books DLed on audible that I haven't gotten to yet. For the record, here's the link to what I've been reading: https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html.

Kruse definitely seems credible; the Twitter accounts of all the others read like any other hackneyed political activist worthy of exactly zero attention.

There's still that pesky "owing allegiance to the US" phrase, a status that can only be formalized with a naturalization oath.

Simple Torture wrote:

--- wrote:Jacob Howard - the 14th amendment's sponsor in the Senate - was clear that the clause be construed as such:

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Popping in to argue against the idea that this is "clear"--the sentence is very strangely constructed, and I think it can be interpreted in at least two ways:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [and] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Or:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The former carves out an exception only for diplomats; the latter is broader and carves out three separate groups that aren't in "every other class." Fucking 19th-century grammar.

I agree with all of this. I should have excluded "clear."

Reading this tweet on November 1st will be my way of opting out of no nut November.

--- wrote:

4/5 wrote: Fox and Friends at 9:24: Coming up next: Why the president is absolutely right that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it clearly says.

I realize nobody actually cares about the Constitution anymore, but interpreting the 14th amendment isn't quite as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be.

"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..."

A reasonable claim could be made that illegal immigrants are still subject to the jurisdiction of the nation from which they emigrated. Jacob Howard - the 14th amendment's sponsor in the Senate - was clear that the clause be construed as such:

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no litigation that has made a determination on the matter one way or the other. The relative merits of Trump's EO aside, the matter simply isn't settled.

I care quite a bit about the Constitution. The idea that the president would have the authority to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship seems to be supported only by the fringiest of fringe elements and has no legal backing as far I can tell.

The question of whether Congress could do so because of that jurisdiction clause seems to be a bit more of an open question, although again it seems that most legal scholars who have weighed in over the last 24 hours seem skeptical of even that claim, but I agree that the issue here becomes less clear.

4/5 wrote:

--- wrote:

4/5 wrote: Fox and Friends at 9:24: Coming up next: Why the president is absolutely right that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it clearly says.

I realize nobody actually cares about the Constitution anymore, but interpreting the 14th amendment isn't quite as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be.

"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..."

A reasonable claim could be made that illegal immigrants are still subject to the jurisdiction of the nation from which they emigrated. Jacob Howard - the 14th amendment's sponsor in the Senate - was clear that the clause be construed as such:

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no litigation that has made a determination on the matter one way or the other. The relative merits of Trump's EO aside, the matter simply isn't settled.

I care quite a bit about the Constitution. The idea that the president would have the authority to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship seems to be supported only by the fringiest of fringe elements and has no legal backing as far I can tell.

Oh I absolutely agree.

4/5 wrote: The question of whether Congress could do so because of that jurisdiction clause seems to be a bit more of an open question, although again it seems that most legal scholars who have weighed in over the last 24 hours seem skeptical of even that claim, but I agree that the issue here becomes less clear.

This is the best resource I've found that contends that, yes, birthright citizenship is constitutionally protected. Lots of interesting reading.

--- wrote:I actually have one of Kruse's books DLed on audible that I haven't gotten to yet. For the record, here's the link to what I've been reading: https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html.

Kruse definitely seems credible; the Twitter accounts of all the others read like any other hackneyed political activist worthy of exactly zero attention.

There's still that pesky "owing allegiance to the US" phrase, a status that can only be formalized with a naturalization oath.

No rancor here: I wish I was well-read enough to dismiss sources that disagree with me.