SlowFlowPro

quote:

---

They could make a viable argument that illegals immigrants are not here legally and aren’t afforded certain constitutional rights.

---

Are they going to just ignore the US around the time of adopting the 14A when "illegal immigrants" effectively didn't exist as a concept?

quote:

---

We're limiting the use of an available tool because the tool might include other people. There is no tool that might not include other people.

---

quote:

---

"The Agema Thermovision 210 might disclose, for example, at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath—a detail that many would consider 'intimate'."

---

quote:

---

But hey, there is no such thing as locked in point spreads, crooked zebras, or "vegas made the call" in pro sports, you guys.

This post brought to you by fanduel.

---

Gambling being mainstream and run with real data is how these players are getting caught :lol:

quote:

---

No, I can't see a situation where it is a bad thing that law enforcement can see who was in an area at the time a crime took place and develop a list of suspects from that information.

---

In your scenario and legal standard, what if the cops found a different illegal behavior by one of the people they observed in this process. Completely unrelated from the crime they were investigating with no factual overlap whatsoever.

Do you think they should be able to use that evidence in a separate prosecution?

quote:

---

The fact that 3 Justices don't think the head of the Executive Branch can fire Exec Employees is pretty frightening

---

There has been a foundational neutering of Congressional power today with that ruling. Congress no longer can define the terms of its legislation.

It's funny that one case today rules "Congress has to act to fix this" and another rules "Congress can't set the parameters of its laws trying to fix something else"

I'm not sure what the limits of Executive power granted via legislation are, at this point, if Congress has lost the ability to define the limited transfer of power in the legislation it creates.

*ETA: I don't see how the APA can be legal anymore, for example.

quote:

---

The problem - as always - is one of logistics. Ammunition and modern fire support would be far, far, far more important to holding this particular position (in historical context) than any quality or even capability of a modern, however elite, small unit.

24 modern soldiers against, at a minimum, 2000 early 19th Century soldiers is a bad bet. Just being able to deliver fire and maintain ammunition supply in that environment is a big question for me.

---

Ammo is the crucial limiting variable, but on the flip side, how much time they have matters. If Delta was given a week to run ops at night they could severely frick up the COC and equipment of the Mexicans. If they had modern night vision it would be as OP as the semi-auto rifles (until the batteries ran out, similar to ammo)

quote:

---

Court says asking for Geofence data IS a 4th Amendment search

So police need a proper search warrant for that type of information

---

Good ruling.

quote:

---

If there is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship, then it would seem that Congress would have to affirmatively grant birthright citizenship for it to be valid.

---

Congress always has had this power under its constitutional naturalization powers. That's how they were able to give Natives citizenship in the face of Elk v. Wilkins.

Congress has vast authority above the Constitutional baselline.

Congress has no authority below the Constitutional baseline.

This power is discussed eloquently in Wong Kim Ark:

quote:

---

The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Congress can define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean akin to how it can determine the jurisdiction of SCOTUS (and lesser federal courts) outside of the constitutional grants of authority

---

You just contradicted your point

"Subject to the jurisdiction" is the equivalent of "the constitutional grants of authority"

That has no conceptual overlap with enforcement of the constitutional grants of the amendment

With your argument, you would permit Congress to define any word in the amendment in any way. It's all fit, regardless of the text of the constitutional amendment, the intent, etc. the entire amendment would be beholden to Congressional acts. How does this make sense in a constitutional system of government where Congress itself is limited by that very document?

ETA: if you think my argument is incorrect, tell me specifically which words. In the 14th amendment Congress could not define how they wish, and then cite the specific authority to establish that distinction for me.

quote:

---

We all can think for ourselves.

---

Are you including the "can only embed X posts" crowd in that? :lol:

I have entirely too much time sensitive work for this to happen today:lol: