politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Compelling argument.
The other commenter already made compelling arguments, which you ignored
You’re both arguing citizenship. That’s a moot point if they’re already in the nation and not subject to its laws.
Being subject to US laws would give them slightly more protection, not less. We've seen plenty of recent examples of the US doing whatever it wants with "illegal immigrants", reality doesn't give a shit what you think.
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.
I understand your point just fine, it's just that it's a stupid point that bears no resemblance to reality. In the real world the lack of legal jurisdiction will protect them from absolutely nothing, the US can and will imprison or kill them with impunity.
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.
There is absolutely nothing preventing the SCOTUS from ruling in ways that are completely illogical and/or overtly unconstitutional, they can use the physical presence of non-citizens on US soil to justifiy whatever the fuck they want to do in the name of national security
That’s true. It would be absolutely insane, but they have the legal power to make such a ruling.
It's not insane at all, the goal is to finish the process of turning the US into a superficially theocratic oligarchy, dismantling the few remaining legal barriers is an important step in that process
That’s not the goal of 7/9 Justices. They’re trying to protect the rule of law and uphold the Constitution.
That's an extremely optimistic assessment
Have you heard anything from Roberts or Barrett in the last month? They’re not putting up with any of this anymore. Roberts explicitly called out the administration’s attempts to circumvent the Constitution and had a speech on how we need to protect the rule of law. They’ve both been voting reasonably in regards to human rights. They’re still both fiscally conservative, however.
That's 2
That’s all we need with Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Although many of the more recent rulings included Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as well.
A handful of halfway decent people are definitely not all we need. It's better than nothing for sure, but nowhere near enough to stop what's happening to this country
There are only nine Justices on SCOTUS. That’s who I’ve been talking about. We only need 5 for majority, and have been getting 7. There are two Trump loyalists, Alito and Thomas.
All 9 of them together wouldn't be enough to stop what's happening
That’s literally what this whole thread and post was about. Lol
You literally said "that's all we need" like 3 comments ago, you have been and continue to be wrong
Dude, how is this topic still confusing to you? There are three co-equal branches of government. SCOTUS is one of them. They can check the power of POTUS. There are 9 Justices on SCOTUS. Three are liberal. We need 2 more to vote reasonably to have a 5/9 majority. We’ve been getting 7/9 votes in favor of civil rights for the last three months.
Take a civics class instead of debating people to learn how the government works.
Idk what part of me pointing out that you're directly contradicting yourself made you want to post a paragraph from a children's social studies book, have you perhaps considered logging off entirely
You are wrong. Plain and simple.
Then please explain what the government can legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.
I already have. Multiple times. Read, instead of just trying to argue.
Condescension is unnecessary and childish. Not one thing you have written is legal. I asked you what can a government legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.
Uhhuh
I’m glad you agree. I think it’s time for your nap, little one.
Lol name calling. Classic.