Pretty non-substantive, but who cares about the name of the Gulf? Why is this a tick for Trump? It just reminds me of his petulance. I was treated this morning to an emergency declaration from my governor that used that language. Pretty humorous.
If only Trump would adhere to the plain text of the 14th amendment with respect to a person, then babies in the womb would not be deprived of life. "...and no state shall deprive any person of life..."
Not necessarily. President Biden also instructed Merrick Garland to do the same, mostly in anticipation of Trump’s action. It’s not against the law to do this. Woodrow Wilson famously ignored the Volstead Act, passed over his veto. He got criticized, but nobody said it was a breach of his oath.
The law itself has a 90-day extension written into it if there's a possible deal: otherwise, it took effect immediately. Companies that host TikTok servers should be cognizant that they may in fact be in breach of the law.
If you believe that citizenship should not automatically be given to the offspring of tourists and illegals that might well include agents of foreign enemies, litigating the current interpretation of the 14th is worthwhile.
Do you know the story of the late King of Thailand, Rama IX, was born in the United States? Bhumibol Adulyadej’s father was attending Harvard, and Bhumibol was born in Cambridge, Mass, while his uncle was on the throne as Rama VII. Bhumibol was indeed a U.S. citizen though his parents were not. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1935, at age 8, when he became Prince of Siam, since Thai law prohibited a citizen of another country from holding royal title.
If Rama IX could be a U.S. citizen, then anyone else born here should be as well.
Never heard that story but I do not believe Rama IX or anyone else born to parents here on a temporary basis should be automatically granted citizenship.
Roe vs. Wade has been litigated numerous times much more recently and the interpretation was changed. If we are lucky, we will get a reversal on the 14th.
Pretty non-substantive, but who cares about the name of the Gulf? Why is this a tick for Trump? It just reminds me of his petulance. I was treated this morning to an emergency declaration from my governor that used that language. Pretty humorous.
Relevant: the White House web site has had the page with the US Constitution removed.
(They're likely just updating the formatting of the site, I know)
However, I missed that his version of the Bible - which includes the Constitution and Pledge of Allegiance - omits amendments 11-27.
If only Trump would adhere to the plain text of the 14th amendment with respect to a person, then babies in the womb would not be deprived of life. "...and no state shall deprive any person of life..."
Not a person until a certain stage of development.
His instruction to the AG to ignore the law surrounding the sale or banning of TikTok is also an immediate failure of his oath.
Not necessarily. President Biden also instructed Merrick Garland to do the same, mostly in anticipation of Trump’s action. It’s not against the law to do this. Woodrow Wilson famously ignored the Volstead Act, passed over his veto. He got criticized, but nobody said it was a breach of his oath.
The law itself has a 90-day extension written into it if there's a possible deal: otherwise, it took effect immediately. Companies that host TikTok servers should be cognizant that they may in fact be in breach of the law.
I would like to see Tik Tok banned but a 75 day delay is nothing more than prosecutorial discretion practiced by every administration.
If you believe that citizenship should not automatically be given to the offspring of tourists and illegals that might well include agents of foreign enemies, litigating the current interpretation of the 14th is worthwhile.
Do you know the story of the late King of Thailand, Rama IX, was born in the United States? Bhumibol Adulyadej’s father was attending Harvard, and Bhumibol was born in Cambridge, Mass, while his uncle was on the throne as Rama VII. Bhumibol was indeed a U.S. citizen though his parents were not. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1935, at age 8, when he became Prince of Siam, since Thai law prohibited a citizen of another country from holding royal title.
If Rama IX could be a U.S. citizen, then anyone else born here should be as well.
Never heard that story but I do not believe Rama IX or anyone else born to parents here on a temporary basis should be automatically granted citizenship.
It was already litigated in the 1890s, and any further changes require following the constitutional process for amending it further.
Roe vs. Wade has been litigated numerous times much more recently and the interpretation was changed. If we are lucky, we will get a reversal on the 14th.
Plain text, and the actual documented intention of the amendment at the time of its creation likely mean it will not.
If the 14’th amendment can be reinvented by executive order, so can the 2’nd amendment with a democrat president.