Taxing Authority
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Houston |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 63101 |
| Registered on: | 2/22/2010 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: CNN/NYT: Bondi to be removed imminently
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 10:10 am to Fuzzy Dunlop
quote:It is, but becoming a Trump AG is a career ending move.
Sounds like a solid resume to be Attorney General
0
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 10:08 am to lake chuck fan
quote:What happens if they commit a crime?
Also, if an illegal isn't a citizen of the US, then they are still "under the jurisdiction of" their native country. They can't be both.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 10:07 am to the808bass
quote:That's means the public has failed. Bigly. Not that we should throw out the constitution.
This is one of a handful of issues where the public is probably 70-30 on. But the people running things are 10-90.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yup. There's a reason Trump is attacking libertarian-leaning republicans.
That's why you've seen this growing population outside of these partisan-based NPCs, who want to do away with the Constitution entirely and create more of an authoritarian state, under the assumption that their site will be the one in power clearly.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 10:02 am to the808bass
quote:Ha! Yeah, I edited my post, I read too much into your post. :cheers:
No. I’m just less bothered by makeup calls than bad calls. Hope that helps.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 9:58 am to the808bass
quote:So you want the SCOTUS to rule based on morality? I don't. And while teh merits of limiting birthright citizenship are obvious... it's up to SCOTUS to create good laws or constitutional amendments. Why would anyone want SCOTUS to legislate from the bench?
It would be the moral position and rational position for them to rule in a fashion that put limits on birthright citizenship.
(if I'm misinterpreting your position, i apologize in advance)
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 9:28 am to the808bass
quote:I see what you're saying here. But the SCOTUS isn't court that hands down punishments. That's not it's purpose.
A more charitable (and, at least in my opinion, more likely) reading of their position is that they see the gaming of the system and that it seems to only go one direction with regards to illegal immigration. And they mistakenly believe that our Justice system has any connection to the idea of justice. So they mistakenly think that justice should be achieved by the Justice system.
Popele seem to want the SCOTUS to rule based on whether birthright citizenship is good or bad thing. That's also not it's purpose. I think we need to greatly change birthright citizenship. But simultaneosly, I want the SCOTUS to strike down the Trump EO. Why? Because I think not letting presidents invalidate contitutional amendments by EO is a good thing.
re: The deafening silence of the USA returning to the moon
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 9:21 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:It is a disgrace. Should be a YUGE story.
The deafening silence of the USA returning to the moon
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:And I'd argue that people illegally coming here aren't trying to evade US jurisdiction, but are rather, seeking to be under US jurisdiction.
There is no standard or precedent regarding "slipping US Jurisdiction". There is theoretically an argument about status, which is binary (are they here legally or illegally). There is nothing to justify creating a sub-class of the "illegal" portion of that binary decision and segregating them into "slipping US jurisdiction or not slipping US jurisdiction" (whatever that even means).
The logical pretzle requried to claim that illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction to make the 14A unapplicable is ... impressive. For a moment pretend the Aministrations position is affirmed. About 6 hours later some illegal is going to file suit that the US cannot remove them because they are not subject to US law.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 9:03 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:Or, we could... you know.... vote congress memebers out.
Yes, let's let our country be ruined and our children raped and murdered by illegals because the pieces of shite in congress are being paid to destroy our way of life.
Throwing out the Constitution because we're unhappy with Congress is silly.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 9:01 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:EXACTLY! The constution is a "living document". It's interpertation shild be flexible over time, and should be read however best fits the current agenda. <-- what Democrats have said for decades.
That’s been the interpretation forever. That doesn’t make it correct.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 8:59 am to deuceiswild
quote:Just remember neither do Leftists when they want to take away your 1A and 2A rights.
You see, personally I don't care to argue or debate what the amendment says, or how it's being interpreted.
re: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 8:58 am to WHS
quote:This makes no difference. It's not SCOTUS job to create laws or changes to laws we need.
1951 America did not have the same issues that we have today.
It's been quite the s*it show watching some of y'all begging for legislation from the bench.
re: Here is What Donald Trump Just Told the World
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/2/26 at 7:18 am to biglego
quote:Nope. Trump has outspent Biden, and enacted a bunch of the Bernie Samders/Pochantas agenta. Conservatives abandoning Trump is well earned.
Trump alone is the reason why conservatives have won anything in the past decade. And now conservatives turn on him
re: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 8:53 pm to antibarner
quote:Except if they aren’t subject to US law, the only people thst could apprehend and remove them would be their own governments. Imagine having to call Mexican authorities and say “hey, come get your guy override here”. I’m sure they’ll be right on it! You think Venezuela is coming to pick up their Tren de Augua members? :lol:
If the parents are illegal they are fugitives and subject to immediate removal upon apprehension. They are subjects of the jurisdiction they came from.
re: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 8:51 pm to Obtuse1
quote:There’s nothing “peaky” about it if you the definition of “regulated”. Hint: It does NOT mean “controlled by government” as we use it today.
I always find it interesting how often that 4 word phrase is repeated without mention of the pesky 4 word phrase at the beginning of the same sentence.
re: I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 1:37 pm to dgnx6
quote:So "international law" supercedes our constitution? You sure about that?
No, because of international law, not because of our constitution.
re: I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 1:35 pm to mwrawls
quote:What constraints were put on birthright citizenship?
My argument around the Constitution is that even if you ignore or support whatever you believe the founder's "intent" was for a law - you have to ask the question of whether the law still makes sense in today's world.
So to cut to the chase and to ignore any BS about whatever the "intent" was:
2nd Amendment: Obviously, it doesn't matter if the intent was for muskets or anything else (it wasn't written to allow only muskets - that's frickin' stupid; it wasn't written with any such constraints in mind) - it doesn't make ANY sense to disarm the citizens of the nation. PERIOD. So intent doesn't matter.
Birthright citizenship. I don't really give a damn what the founders intended with this or not. Birthright citizenship is abused and it's ridiculously stupid to allow it.
re: I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 1:32 pm to CDawson
quote:Indeed. Just like the 2A doesn't apply to semi-automatic firearms.
No intellectually honest person can argue that the Constitution’s intent was to allow open citizenship to any woman who could jump the fence and go into labor.
re: I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 1:26 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:Makes no difference. SCOTUS doesn't evaluate laws for their merit or purpose. Nor would we want them to. It woudl be the very definition of "legislating from the bench".
I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
re: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED
Posted by Taxing Authority on 4/1/26 at 12:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:How dare you!
ITT like Taxing Attorney
Popular
22
