Wildly impractical and ill-advised but I like it anyway.
3 Likes
The death penalty for attempted legislating from the bench? I like the cut of your jib, ma’am! 
You’re forgetting about all the penumbras and emanations. Paraphrasing Justice Douglas, “…specific guarantees in the 14th Amendment have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
3 Likes
I have a right to buy a rubber because of “privacy” which isn’t mentioned and requires those penumbras and emanations, but these penumbras and emanations are totally unrelated to whether the government can spy on me.
As a matter of fact those penumbras and emanations do the opposite sometimes. Sometimes the explicit language is wrong and it becomes obvious that the government does have the right to search you without warrant.
It takes special training to understand the Constitution. Without that special training a common citizen cannot understand the penumbras and emanations and they would read the 4th amendment as saying the government cannot listen or record you phone calls, texts and emails or track your banking transactions without a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Edit: I probably need to start noting when I am being sarcastic.
6 Likes
Nah. We get it. It would take a clueless, dense leftist to think otherwise but I repeat myself.
2 Likes
The other day I attended a Claremont Institute video seminar on birthright citizenship. John C. Eastman (whom the CA bar is trying to disbar, meaning he certainly did something right) explained the actual evolution of the law. Initially, the writers of the 14th Amendment made it explicit that it definitely depended upon the citizenship of the parents. This is what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means; that children of those not lawfully present (something hardly imagined then) would not become citizens. Again, this was clean and explicit from the framers of the 14th A. This was asked on forms requesting citizenship until the 1960’s, when somewhere in the deep state those questions mysteriously disappeared. Now, citing these facts are countered by the left with “right wing conspiracy theory”, what else?
The 1898 case US v. Wong Kim Ark is, unsurprisingly, mis applied by the left and does NOT hold that children of those present illegally become citizens. SCOTUS must rule on this promptly. I hope Trump - who has obviously acquired better knowledge of the pulleys and levers of power - can arrange it. The required ruling is actually quite clear.
5 Likes
Having rather belatedly re-researched the Wong case and subsequent cases, I’m afraid the question isnt too clear. SCOTUS could conceivably overturn what appears to be quite a trough of precedent, what was called, before Dobbs, “super-precedent” like Roe v. Wade. ( There is no such thing in law as “super precedent” , courts can do 1 of 3 things with any precedential decision: follow it, distinguish it, or overrule it.)
Six outta the 9 justices are Catholic. I think that had sump’n to do with Dobbs.
And now that the Pope has explicitly instructed US bishops and devout U.S. Catholics, as to the stance they must take on immigration and deportation, I think if the challenges to Trump’s EO come before the present Court, the ruling will be that abolition of jus soli citizenship cannot be done without a Constitutional amendment.
That is such an easy, obvious way out, and I have no doubt they’ll run for it. I think there are portions of Wong, and of the later Plyler v. Doe decision, which make it difficult to distinguish those cases.
Yes, yes, the draughtsmen of the 14th undoubtedly were addressing the relicts of slavery. And yes, the parents in Wong were LEGAL permanent residents although not citizens. I’m not sure any of that really helps us at this point. I think our only hope is that the Court be willing to call the birth mother an “invader”. That would be great so satisfying and apt! but I don’t think the Sanctified Six are gonna do it.
I hope I’m wrong.
We better start the process for a constitutional amendment right now. Everybody assumes that’s an insurmountable hurdle, but the Const has been amended. 17 times (27 including the first 10, the Bill,of Rights) and the climate will never be more conducive than at this moment.
3 Likes
You’d think the 1/6th of Democrats would be able to read the room by now, wouldn’t you?
While I’m not the stock-up-on-ammo type of prepper, I’m not betting on it.
They didn’t read the room for 60 years nor is it in their interests to do so now unless Musk starts primarying Demonrats like his life depended on it – which it very well may – but certainly he has enough kids that they may be in danger.
3 Likes
I wonder if Mel Gibson might direct a movie about nuking the Vatican during Christ’s Second Coming.
2 Likes
I read he has 12 kids, is that correct? And who and where is Li’l X’s mother? I love and approve what DOGE is doing, of course, but I’m really surprised no one has compared that press conference where Musk kept his son on his shoulders to Mini-me in the Austin Powers movies. (Well,they probably have, just not on the sites I frequent….)
Why do you think he brought the kid?
1 Like
Mel is an “Old Catholic” right? So yeah I can see him doing that.
Did you see Conclave (the movie)? There’s a spectacular scene in there which comes close to this fantasy scenario.
2 Likes
Remember the adage that when governments fear an armed People, Freedom obtains? Well BLOB has a remedy for that: Make States mere agents of BLOB which gets States to also fear an armed People. Why? Because then States will do BLOB’s dirty work:
The four ways the Constitution can be amended are:
-
Proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Twenty-six of the twenty-seven amendments have been added this way.
-
Proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by specially called ratifying conventions in at least three-fourths of the states. This has happened once when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed Prohibition.
-
Proposed at a constitutional convention called by at least two-thirds of the states, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
-
Proposed at a constitutional convention called by at least two-thirds of the states, then ratified by specially called ratifying conventions in at least three-fourths of the states.
3 Likes
I grew up in a Catholic town and attended Catholic school until 7th grade. I know a lot of Catholics. I know maybe two that rigidly follow what the Church leadership says.
One of the strictest Catholics I knew growing up was a friends mother. She would not have protected sex because of her faith, but she was for abortion.
I think the best way to think of the court is that we have three constitutional, three progressive and three corporate judges. The corporate judges will rule in favor of corporations. They want cheap labor and government subsidized sales. 6-3 loss against the obvious.
2 Likes
Well, that’s mild, @Mettelus , far more temperate than I expected. I’m putting up my umbrella though, expecting severe hail.
1 Like
Musk is playing two movies on one screen with that image. The two movies have different audiences:
- Trump’s base’s family values.
- Wannabe African Big Men among the wealthy.
Sad that I have to keep spelling this out to people but all Musk’s talk about TFR is for naught if his babymamas have fewer children than they would have had in the absence of his serial polygyny with them. Females are the limiting resource in TFR.
Getting wealthy guys freed up to have harems like Musk may get them to start identifying with future generations at the expense of further alienating military aged men from the society. Then you’re in a position where you have to somehow try to pull an Islamic State’s approach to dealing with all the incels. Get them all fucking each other in the butt, or their camels and goats and disease-riddle temple prostitutes and/or migrating to other countries to start gang raping the women, children and occasionally men there.
PS: The crude expression of the Islamic State is necessary to convey the ugly consequences of FIRST outlawing duel to the death among men so as to found “civil” dispute processing and THEN permitting polygyny to emerge under cover of the mendacious phrase “serial monogamy”. Wealthy people and their Squires need to WTFU.
2 Likes
Amendment is not easy but it’s not impossible,is all I’m sayin’. It has been done: whereas jus soli has never been conclusively rejected by the judicial branch.
1 Like
John Eastman addressed this case, of course and explained how the left has run with and greatly amplified it’s misunderstanding. In fact, the actual holding, he points out, applies only to the birth of children of legal residents. No doubt about that situation. All the rest, he says, is dicta. So, I don’t see any great weight of precedent needing to be overturned. I don’t see any precedent at all, much less super. It seems to me to be yet another case of the left repeating a lie often enough……
3 Likes
Addendum: SCOTUS may also take judicial notice of the liabilities which attach to excessive liberality in granting citizenship based on accidents (or intentionality) of birth here. There was no income tax in 1898 when the spurious “precedent” was decided. Ask Boris Johnson how the present (mis)interpretation worked out for him. Reminder: born here? Never reside? Never return after birth? No matter, you owe income tax on any and all earnings - for life. Not a triviality.
Also not trivial is the massive intentional abuse of this (mis)rule. The cumulative human, economic and social costs are enormous. These circumstances only arose after the enormous abuse which followed this misuse of purported precedent, and would have to be part of the next case to reach SCOTUS. Expect weighty amicus briefs!
3 Likes
Wow I never thought about income tax! I just read a Senate report on “birth tourism”. (Often the parents do a bunk without 3ven paying the hospital bills.) So when the young chinks come back to claim their “birthright”, they should first have to pay back taxes at least.
I agree with you @civilwestman , and I’m familiar with the argument Eastman is making. I just think the Court will try to avoid having to determine the issue. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
3 Likes