Birthright Citizenship…Arguments to begin this week at the Supreme Court.

[Etymology gaslight]

no one follows the constitution, it is party driven and mostly by demofks.

Well they are left to define within public opinion,
That means that the Supreme Court is either inundated or remiss.

But I think they've had time approached the subject.

Especially when Obama's
past rears it's ugly head.

The DNA is on the way.

Yes it's an insanely fascinating taboo subject
that's all.

 

[postman]

View attachment 1119206

Don't forget, to have standing you have to show either current harm, or the high probability of future harm. It also has to have a remedy within their powers under Article 3.

As a justice famously said. Where there is no remedy, there is no right.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Read many on both sides of the issue. Further discussion is an excersise in futility as already shown here. It comes down to what the justices say about the issue.

Nothing more nothing less.

And someone getting caught.

 

[postman]

Well they are left to define within public opinion,
That means that the Supreme Court is either inundated or remiss.

But I think they've had time approached the subject.

Especially when Obama's
past rears it's ugly head.

The DNA is on the way.

Yes it's an insanely fascinating taboo subject
that's all.

Are you suffering from ODS?

 

[Care4all]

You've never addressed my point. In Wong, his parents were permanent legal residents. They came into the country legally and set up a permanent domicile. They explicitly subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.

People that cross our border illegally are more like your diplomats, Indians and invaders - they expressly reject sovereignty of the the US over them - they do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US

No they are not similar to diplomats, nor the others, they have no diplomatic immunity agreement for mere citizens of another country, legal or illegal. They are not only subject to our laws, they are under our protection....they are under our legal jurisdiction while on our soil....

All illegal crossers ARE SUBJECT to our Sovereign Laws. There is no immunity. And they are not in a military we are at war with....

 

[Unkotare]

Although I’m not a supporter of anchor babies,....

Good, because they don't exist.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Good, because they don't exist.

Oh great ..

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Technical Difficulties

There he is again !!

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Don't forget, to have standing you have to show either current harm, or the high probability of future harm. It also has to have a remedy within their powers under Article 3.

As a justice famously said. Where there is no remedy, there is no right.

I guess we'll all find out together.

 

[postman]

No they are not similar to diplomats, nor the others, they have no diplomatic immunity agreement for mere citizens of another country, legal or illegal. They are not only subject to our laws, they are under our protection....they are under our legal jurisdiction while on our soil....

All illegal crossers ARE SUBJECT to our Sovereign Laws. There is no immunity. And they are not in a military we are at war with....

He seems to have a problem with a very simple test of jurisdiction.
If they are subject to our laws (criminal, civil, tax etc) they are subject to our jurisdiction.

Which is why diplomats don't pay sales tax, income tax, or even have to pay their parking tickets.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

He seems to have a problem with a very simple test of jurisdiction.
If they are subject to our laws (criminal, civil, tax etc) they are subject to our jurisdiction.

Which is why diplomats don't pay sales tax, income tax, or even have to pay their parking tickets.

That makes us all look good.

 

[Delldude]

No they are not similar to diplomats, nor the others, they have no diplomatic immunity agreement for mere citizens of another country, legal or illegal.

The point is they come from a foreign land with no ties to the US, like diplomats.

 

[postman]

I guess we'll all find out together.

The judicial power of the united states does not have the ability to tell congress what to do.

And congress alone, is in charge of all federal elections.

Courts can rein them in when they exceed or violate their constitutional powers, but can't dictate actions they must follow.

 

[jc456]

He seems to have a problem with a very simple test of jurisdiction.
If they are subject to our laws (criminal, civil, tax etc) they are subject to our jurisdiction.

Which is why diplomats don't pay sales tax, income tax, or even have to pay their parking tickets.

that isn't what it says at all. I posted what the jurisdiction means.

 

[jc456]

The judicial power of the united states does not the ability to tell congress what to do.

And congress alone, is in charge of all federal elections.

Courts can rein them in when they exceed or violate their constitutional powers, but can't dictate actions they must follow.

again, who reigns them in?

Separations of power and three branches must mean something different to english reading americans. I've yet to see any proof they judicial can do any such thing.

 

[postman]

The point is they come from a foreign land with no ties to the US, like diplomats.

Their mere presence here ties them to the US.

Their entry into our borders, whether they wish it or not, makes them subject to our jurisdiction upon entry.

That's the meaning of sovereignty. The sovereign gets to control everything and everyone within their territorial jurisdiction.

 

[postman]

that isn't what it says at all. I posted what the jurisdiction means.

Sovereign and legal jurisdiction are pretty much the same. As one stems from (subset) of the other.

 

[Delldude]

Their mere presence here ties them to the US.

They are still tied to their home countries sovereignty..............much like diplomats.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

The judicial power of the united states does not have the ability to tell congress what to do.

And congress alone, is in charge of all federal elections.

Courts can rein them in when they exceed or violate their constitutional powers, but can't dictate actions they must follow.

Three branches no waiting.
Now we just need three parties to balance things out.

 

[Care4all]

The point is they come from a foreign land with no ties to the US, like diplomats.

Well, unfortunately for y'all, that was already addressed by Chief Justice Marshal! Back then....

The Text

In nineteenth-century language, a nation’s “jurisdiction” meant its sovereign authority. The 1865 edition of Webster’s Dictionary defined jurisdiction of nations as the “power of governing or legislating,” “the power or right of exercising authority,” the “limit within which power may be exercised,” or “extent of power or authority.”

Nineteenth-century sovereigns had authority (“jurisdiction”) principally based on geography. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Supreme Court in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812), “The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute.” Marshall identified three exceptions to this otherwise absolute territorial sovereignty: foreign sovereigns and their property, foreign diplomats, and foreign military forces. These, he said, even within sovereign territory, are not “within the jurisdiction of the sovereign.” But he added that these exceptions did not extend to private non-citizens within sovereign territory—even those there only temporarily. “When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct,” Marshall wrote, they are “amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.”

Marshall used the phrase “amenable to jurisdiction”; subsequently Henry Wheaton—the leading mid-nineteenth-century American writer on international law—used the equivalent phrase “subject to jurisdiction.” Referring to sovereign authority, he noted, for example, that ships on the high seas were “subject to the jurisdiction of the state to which they belong.” And as to diplomatic immunity, Wheaton wrote that ambassadors and their families were “entitled to an entire exemption from the local jurisdiction,” except that if a diplomat “is a citizen or subject of the country to which he is sent … he remains still subject to its jurisdiction.”

In sum, the Amendment’s framers chose a phrase that was well-defined in pre-enactment law. “Subject to the jurisdiction” of a nation meant under sovereign authority, and it included everyone within sovereign territory apart from foreign sovereigns, diplomats, and armies.

The Originalist Basis of Birthright Citizenship – Michael D. Ramsey

Originalism requires extending birthright citizenship to all people born in the United States regardless of the status of their parents.

lawliberty.org