Sure, but it leads to allowing for the possibility of interpreting "..the right to bear arms.." as "you are allowed to own the limbs of an Ursus arctos".
There's plenty in the US constitution which is vaguely worded, but you have to twist its words an awful lot to deny birthright citizenship.
If we live in a world where words have no meaning and the definition of the Constitution can be interpreted to be literally anything depending on today's mood of the Supreme Court, why even bother writing a Constitution at all?
Why not get rid of the whole charade and just replace it with "whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court can make up any law as they feel like it"? It has the same meaning, but it's an awful lot clearer!
In fact, I think there's a term for a ruler with complete power who's there for life, something like an "absolute monarchy"?
And if they do enough of that, the other two branches might eventually be motivated to take action to counter it, like packing the courts or impeachments. Or telling SCOTUS to enforce it, as one president did.
The language couldn't be any clearer. The fact that it was questioned by people with a stated motive doesn't prove otherwise.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...
It's the second part that is in dispute and is not clear from the constitution's text what exactly it means and who it excludes. And yes, it has always excluded some people born within the borders, it is not a meaningless statement.
Well, no, but almost everyone inside US borders is subject to US laws. The exceptions are rare: people in foreign embassies (which is "foreign soil"), invading armies, and indigenous tribes on tribal land.
So if you follow the logic of this administration (which I don't) you can construe the illegal immigrants as an invasion. You would assume that if there was an invading army that got dispersed and the stragglers were hiding out for years after the state surrendered, like some Japanese soldiers after WW2, as the law enforcement was trying to find and remove them, the jurisdiction would not apply to them. Then, there could be a wartime state sponsored guerilla force. Then, allegedly state affiliated guerilla force infiltrating without an official conflict, like Russians in Donetsk in 2015. You have to draw a line somewhere, and in theory it could be pretty far either way
Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported?
"subject to jurisdiction" does not mean "has to follow US law", that is territorial jurisdiction. Subject to jurisdiction means political jurisdiction and allegiance. That is why children born to members of Native American tribes (no matter the location of birth) were considered not subject to jurisdiction because the parents held allegiance to their tribe. Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
I don't have an opinion on the legally correct answer, reading the full decision and dissents I'd give a slight edge to the majority.
Where does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities.
You are correct, but you will never sway the account you are replying to. Check their comment history.
They put a ton of effort into carrying water for conservative causes, even when there is no legal or logical backing for them. Just like the conservatives on the supreme court, they arrive at their desired results first and work backward to their justification.
POV: you're about to hear the dumbest takes on the internet.
/s
Seriously though, were the founding fathers just master ragebaiters or what? More ink has been spilled over these two lines than any other in modern history.
In the past decade, the Constitution hasn’t slowed down the courts from creatively interpreting its various clauses. Their decisions have effectively amended many of those fundamental (and arguably inalienable) rights. Repeatedly.
This trivial reading of the constitution doesn't align with the reality. Two simple exceptions and a third not so simple are children of diplomats, children of invading armies, and native americans, who required an act of congress to give citizenship at birth.
At my current job I get 25 days of PTO a year, with a cap of 30 days, plus company holidays (12 or so?), plus 5 days the entire company shuts down. I have to be careful not to hit my cap even taking 4 weeks of vacation because it’s still less than I earn. You have “unlimited” pto and take half of the vacation I do. If you ever change jobs you’ll get $0, while I’ll get a bonus.
I think that's true, but I like that this site includes a "ESTIMATED MUNITIONS & EQUIPMENT COSTS" section that shows the value of actual, expended munitions which are all one-time costs directly resulting from the war.
Seems like a massive understatement given how much of this war has been shooting down iranian missiles. According to wikipedia, a single patriot missile cost 4 million, and you often have to use multiple to get a succesful shoot down.
People should be able to separate the man from his politics and look at this apolitically. I don't see how anyone can see the way his speech patterns have changed over the years and not conclude that he has had a sharp cognitive decline. It's baffling that we don't talk about it, especially after we just went through this with Biden and had the whole retrospective about how that was ignored. Now here we are doing the exact same thing again immediately.
Anybody who has observed somebody age over decades knows that there is a huge difference between being 70 and 80. And it’s another big decline when they approach 90.
The democrats denied this with Biden and now the republicans are denying it with Trump.
Maybe we should get people that are way beyond normal retirement age out of political Leadership?
Voters primarily vote for people that look and act like them, and retired people are a massive voting block. Chris Christie saying off-the-cuff that if young people voted in any significant numbers then he would care about what they had to say was a huge money quote. We get geriatrics because people moan about how our vote doesn't matter while not voting.
See, it's okay if it's the person you voted for and he's doing things you like. But when it's someone you didn't vote for and you don't like what he's doing then the cognitive decline is suddenly a huge problem.
I understand that you're making some political statement about the voters but it has to be pointed out the mental health of a president is a problem or not a problem independently of what the voters think. Sorry for pointing out the obvious, it just seems to me that many people nowadays fall into some kind of polarization trap that hinders their understanding of the world.
I objected to Biden running in the first place because he was too old, and I very much objected to him running for re-election, and consider that my concerns were fully validated. I also think there should be a mandatory retirement age for politicians and judicial officers of 75 or less, because they're not going to be around long enough to experiences the consequences of their policy decisions. If they're still mentally acute they can contribute to public discourse via books and oratory.
Now that that baseline is established, the idea that Trump is mentally fit to be President is absurd.
I'd say it's about doing things at the next level to show you're ready for that level. So for moving from a Sr to a Staff position might involve doing more mentoring of the team, showing that you are using your knowledge to improve the efficiency of both your team and other teams, etc.
Good point, but until many popular packages stop requiring install.sh to operate, you'll still need to allowlist some of them. That is built into the PNPM tooling, luckily :)
You can also have an index file that describes when to use each file (nest with additional folders and index files as needed) and tell the agent to check the index for any relevant documentation they should read before they start. Sometimes it will forget and not consult the docs but often it will consult the relevant docs first to load just the things it needs for the task at hand.
I tend to think it would lead to them forming opinions about the people they interact with as they learn what it's like to interact with them, and that this would also influence their behaviour/outputs. Just imagining the day where copilot's chain of thought starts to include things like "Greg is bossy and often unkind to me in PR reviews. I need to set clear boundaries with him and discontinue the relationship if he will not respect them."
A one time cost is fine if you don’t mind the app breaking next time Apple updates iOS. There is an ongoing cost to ensuring the app continues to work.
The maintenance effort required on iOS is substantial. About a quarter of your full-time year needs to be dedicated to it.
On desktop, you can just publish your software and slowly see it age as you work on your next big release. On iOS, it ages every year at brutal pace, and your new sales will plummet while you work on your next big release, meaning your revenue crashes much faster.
Even worse, the iOS App Store has no notion of paid upgrades, and publishing a new app is basically like starting from scratch as far as discoverability goes. So when you finally have your next big release ready, it's like launching a completely new company.
Apple really wants developers to make subscription apps that ship frequent iterative changes, and other business models just simply don't work well on their mobile platform (on Android it's even worse btw).
