Again. Show me an example of when the court ruled with a carve out.
Trump plans to sign EO ending birthright citizenship
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Again. Show me an example of when the court ruled with a carve out.
Your mind has gone wobbly and you are losing focus.
Your post stated that "congress has authority over jurisdiction."
My reply to that was "no."
Congress does not have ultimate authority over "jurisdiction" except with regard to naturalized citizens if it wishes or not- The constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court has ultimate authority over "jurisdiction" - and congress has authority to take actions that are consistent with the courts determination of what the word "jurisdiction" means in spirit and intent.
You are trying to do your usual binary approach by making it just for congress to determine. It is more complex than that.
The carve-out issue that you mention presumably relates to an issue from the other day about whether and what would be retroactive if the court makes a decision limiting the definition prior to the date of the decision. You suggest that such decisions are never made and I say they are made every court session. Lots and lots of criminal rights decisions made in the 60's and 70's and not everyone who did not benefit from those rights was immediately released from prison.
I am not going to replay my points from the other day that you are not able to understand but the court addresses those factors in the remedy phase of the decision and may or may not order retroactive compliance. In addition, the court considers what the parties have requested for remedies as part of their pleading. It is doubtful that either government or those adversely impacted by a more constrictive intepretation of jurisdiction are going to ask for retroactive application in the remedy section of the pleadings so it is unlikely that the court would need to address it. There, there's several more points for your binary mind to overload on.
It is not either the court or congress as your binary mind wants. It is both.
By way of example, the court defines/requires basic principles and outcomes to be met in issues such as affirmative action, gerrymandering, equal protection etc, and then allows congress and states and agencies to develop and present plans to the court for review and approval as to whether they meet the requirements of the court decision. I would anticipate that the court- if it hears the case- will define the intent and basic requirements of what the 14th amendment "jurisdiction" clause is trying to accomplish, and then let congress and the executive branch use their authority to develop and present legislation and rules that are consistent with the decision. Not either/or but both. JUST SAY NO TO BINARY THINKING.
Last edited:
It's worked for near 300 years. In 20 years time, when the stench of Trump's scapegoating has washed off of the white house, no one will remember this being an issue. Just like it was 20 years ago, when illegal entries were around the same.
The court will kick it back to a state issue, which is what it should be.
You're trying to conpare a state issue to a national issue. There's no constitutional mandate for marriage, citizenship on the other hand.
It has been redefined several times over those 300 years when it was needed to address specific people groups. Tis needed again.
Blah blah blah.
You are basically talking to yourself. Some of what you said is sound and some is just your opinion.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re arguing and it is true sometimes the court kicks issues back to the congress and other state and local governments to get their laws right under the constitution but that simply means that government does have authority over an issue they just implemented it outside of the parameters of the constitution.
Regardless, it doesn’t make legal sense that the court would rule we all have citizenship due to birthright and others do not due to not having legal status parents without some kind of congressional qualification. And yes you have already stated this in a round about way and this has been my argument all the way through. I just think you like to argue.
Now what we do have a true disagreement with is that the court will allow for a carve out within the current law as stands. I say absolutely not. And I’m well aware there are no rules in this area but it would break with normal rules and throw instability into our system.
Just the idea that we all have citizenship based on birthright but others do not because of a standard not applied to the vast majority would be repugnant to the rule of law.
Now does the executive branch have an argument stating congress has already applied jurisdictional standards through immigration and visiting laws is, in my opinion, the real issue.
You are more than welcome to disagree or agree with that. Truthfully, I’m not saying one way or the other, just that it is interesting and is on its face meritorious.
I do find it hard to believe any court will say congress does not have authority to set qualifications on parameters and rule citizenship is a negative right.
Went point by point in a long post to address the points you raised, and you start by saying " I am just talking to myself."
Nice. Let's stop right there then.
On ignore until after Christmas or so.
Last edited:
Probably a good idea considering the ass whooping that’s about to come down on republicans.
Are saying that Donnald is not the dad? the plot thickens. "insert dramatic music here"