Trump Wins on Injunctions

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

Fair enough with respect to Native Americans in the nineteenth century, who were at least to some extent considered to belong to sovereign nations and thus under separate jurisdictions. However, I don’t believe the constitutionality of birthright citizenship has ever been seriously questioned with respect to immigrants and their children; at least, as I understand it, the Supreme Court has routinely upheld this standard.

It has been seriously questioned in regard to the children of immigrants, but not in regard to the children of illegal aliens. 

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

The first person I was responding to pointed out the unassailability of Americans’ right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment, but the application of the phrase “a well-regulated militia,” and the fact that firearms have evolved considerably over the past 200 years, have certainly rendered that amendment debatable: whether the amendment should be interpreted to mean that everyone and their drunk uncle has the right to go out and purchase an assault rifle.

Does the fact that the First Amendment was ratified in the days of quill and parchment, does that mean it does not apply to radio, TV and internet? 

 

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

 

I’m no legal scholar but would suggest that the phrase “well-regulated militia” has been debated far more vigorously than the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” especially as the 2nd Amendment has had a far more deleterious effect on US society than the 14th, but both have been pretty broadly interpreted, as far as I know.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

A free state, with citizenry capable of rising up again a tyrannical government. 

[KhunLA]

Don't know if anyone posted yet ... 

 

 

[Yagoda]

11 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From May 13, 2025 SCOTUS Oral arguments birthright citizenship:

(Sauer) The government hasn't taken a position on that. Our position is not that class certification will necessarily be granted. Our position is that Rule 23 is how these sorts of claims should be channeled.

Justice Kavanaugh (42:44): And you think, I think you just said it's very possible that class certification may be granted?

General Sauer (42:50): It is possible.

I dont think anyone who understands this decision or the law necessarily agrees with Alito. Class actions can result in a nationwide preliminary injunction, otherwise the purpose of a class action would be defeated. The way to defeat spurious injunctions is the bond requirement

[Yagoda]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It has been seriously questioned in regard to the children of immigrants, but not in regard to the children of illegal aliens. 

There is no case addressing the issue.

 

But it is an issue for Congress, who should take it up.

[Cory1848]

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It has been seriously questioned in regard to the children of immigrants, but not in regard to the children of illegal aliens. 

Does the fact that the First Amendment was ratified in the days of quill and parchment, does that mean it does not apply to radio, TV and internet? 

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

A free state, with citizenry capable of rising up again a tyrannical government. 

On your first point, I was born in the US to immigrant parents. However, I pretty much look and talk like a white guy. With regard to the current assault on birthright citizenship, I think we pretty much know that white people are not those being targeted, and that if white people were still the majority of those benefiting from birthright citizenship, this constitutional right would not be under attack.

 

On your second point, sure, TV and the internet can also have deleterious effects on society, but their use clearly falls under the umbrella “freedom … of the press.” Individual lunatics with assault rifles are not part of any “well-regulated militia.”

 

On your third point, it seems pretty clear that growing numbers of Americans are coming to realize that the current executive branch of government is subverting the separation of powers (which is also spelled out in the constitution) by making demands of and threatening the legislative and now the judicial branches. So, “a free state, with citizenry capable of rising up against a tyrannical government,” as you suggest?

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Cory1848 said:

On your first point, I was born in the US to immigrant parents. However, I pretty much look and talk like a white guy. With regard to the current assault on birthright citizenship, I think we pretty much know that white people are not those being targeted, and that if white people were still the majority of those benefiting from birthright citizenship, this constitutional right would not be under attack.

Your parents were illegal aliens? Please do not conflate legal immigrants with illegal aliens. 

 

As I understand it, the argument is that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, but of their native country. 

 

Just now, Cory1848 said:

On your second point, sure, TV and the internet can also have deleterious effects on society, but their use clearly falls under the umbrella “freedom … of the press.” Individual lunatics with assault rifles are not part of any “well-regulated militia.”

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

But "Individual lunatics with assault rifles..." are part of "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed on. 

 

You want to punish the many for the actions of a few. I think the damage that can be done by one lie on FOX or CNN far outweighs what one nut-sack can do you a gun. 

 

Can you define "assault rifle"? 

 

 

Just now, Cory1848 said:

 

On your third point, it seems pretty clear that growing numbers of Americans are coming to realize that the current executive branch of government is subverting the separation of powers (which is also spelled out in the constitution) by making demands of and threatening the legislative and now the judicial branches. So, “a free state, with citizenry capable of rising up against a tyrannical government,” as you suggest?

What do you mean by "...the current executive branch of government is subverting the separation of powers..."? That is not clear to me.

 

And your claim that the executive branch is "...making demands of and threatening the legislative and now the judicial branches." seems vague as well. Would you please expand on that? 

 

If Trump wrote an executive order demanding all firearms be confiscated, would you support that action?