Who thinks this is a good idea?
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 13:49 last edited by
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 13:55 last edited by
Not me…
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 14:11 last edited by
Shut it down.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 14:16 last edited by
He's not going to shut it down. I think he's going to facilitate a sale. Not by the above means, though.
-
He's not going to shut it down. I think he's going to facilitate a sale. Not by the above means, though.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 14:24 last edited by@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
I think he's going to facilitate a sale. Not by the above means, though.
You say that based on what?
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 14:50 last edited by
The government should make a profit.
-
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
I think he's going to facilitate a sale. Not by the above means, though.
You say that based on what?
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 15:58 last edited by@Axtremus said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
I think he's going to facilitate a sale. Not by the above means, though.
You say that based on what?
He’s trying to play hardball with the CCP and swing a deal. This is likely just a tactic.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 16:00 last edited by
Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.
-
Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 16:23 last edited by@Mik said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.
I’ve heard a pretty good legal argument that birthright citizenship has been distorted beyond all reasonable measures. The original Amendment was a protection for the freed slaves and their children, and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” would exclude children of illegal aliens as they are living outside of the jurisdiction of the US. If somebody is staying in the country illegally on an expired visa, are they truly living subject to to the jurisdiction of the US?
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 16:25 last edited by jon-nyc
Yes. They certainly believe they are, the cops believe they are and are happy to arrest them when necessary, and the courts believe they are and will try them when necessary.
Try that with an ambassador’s kid.
-
@Mik said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.
I’ve heard a pretty good legal argument that birthright citizenship has been distorted beyond all reasonable measures. The original Amendment was a protection for the freed slaves and their children, and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” would exclude children of illegal aliens as they are living outside of the jurisdiction of the US. If somebody is staying in the country illegally on an expired visa, are they truly living subject to to the jurisdiction of the US?
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 16:33 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@Mik said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.
I’ve heard a pretty good legal argument that birthright citizenship has been distorted beyond all reasonable measures. The original Amendment was a protection for the freed slaves and their children, and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” would exclude children of illegal aliens as they are living outside of the jurisdiction of the US. If somebody is staying in the country illegally on an expired visa, are they truly living subject to to the jurisdiction of the US?
I think that's how the Whitehouse is going to go about this...
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 17:39 last edited by
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
-
Yes. They certainly believe they are, the cops believe they are and are happy to arrest them when necessary, and the courts believe they are and will try them when necessary.
Try that with an ambassador’s kid.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 17:59 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
Yes. They certainly believe they are, the cops believe they are and are happy to arrest them when necessary, and the courts believe they are and will try them when necessary.
Try that with an ambassador’s kid.
If they are living under assumed identities with falsified identifications, social security numbers, or even living completely off the grid, are they truly living under the full jurisdiction of the US? By failing to comply with the laws and regulations they are hiding their very existence and not complying with the US Jurisdiction.
I could easily see this coming down to the type of documentation that you have.
-
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 18:01 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
-
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 18:08 last edited by@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.
Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.etc.
-
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.
Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.etc.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 18:51 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.
Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.etc.
Abortion has never been seen as a right. Privacy was. A liberal court hid abortion under the privacy umbrella in the 70s but most judges including Ruth Vader Ginsburg have always acknowledged that it was some weak ass shit that wouldn’t stand up to a serious and unbiased review. And it didn’t.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 19:10 last edited by
At most Trump get two votes on SCOTUS. At most.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 23:15 last edited by
Maybe.
As I said, I don't think he's doing anything but refocusing the conversation. And maybe a finger in the wind for Amendment support.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.
Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.etc.
Abortion has never been seen as a right. Privacy was. A liberal court hid abortion under the privacy umbrella in the 70s but most judges including Ruth Vader Ginsburg have always acknowledged that it was some weak ass shit that wouldn’t stand up to a serious and unbiased review. And it didn’t.
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 00:51 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.
Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.etc.
Abortion has never been seen as a right. Privacy was. A liberal court hid abortion under the privacy umbrella in the 70s but most judges including Ruth Vader Ginsburg have always acknowledged that it was some weak ass shit that wouldn’t stand up to a serious and unbiased review. And it didn’t.
Ah, did not know that. Thanks.
But I think that my comment still holds. There are a lot of decisions where the Supreme Court has reversed itself or done a different interpretation of the Constitution.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.
Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...
I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.
Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.etc.
Abortion has never been seen as a right. Privacy was. A liberal court hid abortion under the privacy umbrella in the 70s but most judges including Ruth Vader Ginsburg have always acknowledged that it was some weak ass shit that wouldn’t stand up to a serious and unbiased review. And it didn’t.
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 01:34 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:
including Ruth Vader Ginsburg
She did wear a black robe after all.