disguy_ovahea @ disguy_ovahea @lemmy.world

Posts

54

Comments

4,941

Joined

1 yr. ago

I follow, but you’re talking about the practical application of the situation after the ruling. I’m talking about it being the reason SCOTUS couldn’t make that ruling in the first place.

My point isn’t about what the government would do to them regardless of the law. It’s that SCOTUS cannot interpret the 14th Amendment in that way without deeming those individuals to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, making it an entirely problematic interpretation.

I don’t think you understand my point. If they have their citizenship revoked because they are determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, then the laws of the United States would not apply to them, because they’ve been determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s a problematic interpretation of the amendment.

Right. The law is academic. I’m not saying they couldn’t shoot them dead in the street. We all know the government doesn’t always follow the law. I’m simply saying that’s the legal problem that would be created as a result of changing the interpretation of that clause, and therefore an unreasonable interpretation for a court to make.

That’s literally what they’d create if the court ruled they are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s my whole point. There is no part of the 14th Amendment that can be interpreted differently to remove citizenship without granting them immunity from law.

Then please explain what the government can legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.

You’re both arguing citizenship. That’s a moot point if they’re already in the nation and not subject to its laws.

That is correct. My point is if they argue that clause of the 14th Amendment about being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they would effectively make them legally untouchable.

There’s no way to interpret the 14th Amendment to accomplish what they want to accomplish.

You can if you are outside of the jurisdiction of the presiding government body. You’re untouchable by the law of the land. That’s literally what jurisdiction means.

Compelling argument.

That’s the literal definition of jurisdiction.

ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun

the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.

The United States can only enforce its laws on those that are within its jurisdiction. It’s exactly the same as entering a foreign consulate or pulling over a foreign diplomat. There is literally nothing they can legally do to them.

To your point, if they ever chose to leave, they would never be allowed re-entry.

The last time Democrats had the same majority that Republicans have now was the 111th Congress. It was considered the most productive Congress since the 89th Congress, which was also controlled by Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

The brief period they had majority in the 117th Congress, it was a weak majority and there were DINOs like Manchin preventing progress.

The peak for the middle-class was mid-20th century, when Democrats had the longest running control of Congress.

They would be without citizenship, yes, but they would also be legally outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. They could literally do anything and not get arrested. It would be like everywhere they go they’re standing on international waters.

The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.

My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.

Imposter? A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law. This isn’t about her opinion. It’s about reading the 14th Amendment.

Want to change it? Go for it. You’ll need half the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution.

There’s nothing ethical about forcing her to carry a very likely non-viable fetus to term. They just began the second trimester and doctors say there is fluid on the fetus’s brain. The family has no say in the outcome.

That is correct. This is why she was asked that question.

https://youtu.be/CTv7WiYmBec

I thought it was odd branding after Cinemax. HBO was synonymous with great television and mini-series. Skinemax had a different association.

That’s far from the norm. SCOTUS has upheld far more lower court rulings than overturned.

https://archive.is/2025.05.08-094244/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-lawsuits-against-trump-administration/