Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

what the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means

There's a TLDR out there but basically it was a way to shut down a debate about whether to give citizenship to Blacks and how to do that without forcing unwanted citizenship onto Indians who had jurisdiction over their own Tribes.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

There's a TLDR out there but basically it was a way to shut down a debate about whether to give citizenship to Blacks and how to do that without forcing unwanted citizenship onto Indians who had jurisdiction over their own Tribes.

Right, I posted a summary of it.  There's also the matter of children of diplomats, who are also not citizens by birth.  But that's all probably later-arising stuff.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right, I posted a summary of it.  There's also the matter of children of diplomats, who are also not citizens by birth.  But that's all probably later-arising stuff.

So if the history is clear why do you suggest the language injects ambiguity?

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

So if the history is clear why do you suggest the language injects ambiguity?

Because it's all legislative intent, which is murky shit.  And, taking your example to the extreme, maybe it was only intended to give citizenship to blacks who were born here.

Nonetheless, I think the answer is relatively clear, but because it's relatively clear doesn't mean it's certain to come out that way, because Calvinball.

Those who claim the outcome is certain according to their desired outcome without engaging in analysis are as bad as those who engage in bad analysis to obtain their desired outcome.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

School of Scientology Film School.

 

Muhammad's kindergarten / wife training School

(one grade only ! no married 7yo's in schools !!)

Edited by tx 3 putt
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're really as bad as the Supreme Court justices you decry.  You work your way backward from your desired result.

No really though, because Surly is not the Supreme Court and shitposting to pass the time on a weekday has somewhat lower stakes. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted

The consensus at least on BlueSky has been that calling the issue debatable is clown shit, which has sparked a meta-debate about how debatable this issue even is.

I don't think the language itself is ambiguous. If you want to get into legislative intent, that's fine, but to my mind that's a different question from whether the language is ambiguous. The only way it could be ambiguous is if the reader can't tell what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. The words are about clear as words could be, which is why I think the better side of this meta-debate is the side that says this isn't even debatable.

On the other side, there was this fringe academic being ridiculed on BlueSky trying to say that "jurisdiction" has these esoteric definitions that require us to entertain his fringe arguments. I'm not sure I follow the particulars of why he thinks the word has those definitions, but it sure gives off "gold fringe on the American flag" vibes to me so I've decided to trust the experts rather than become one of those "do my own research" loons.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

They have this great women's basketball recruit, Lucy Furr, who is absolute fire from three-point range.

She's sooooo hot.  Straight fire.

Posted
1 hour ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

They have this great women's basketball recruit, Lucy Furr, who is absolute fire from three-point range.

Was she in The Devil In Mrs. Jones?

Posted
1 hour ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

They have this great women's basketball recruit, Lucy Furr, who is absolute fire from three-point range.

Dee Ablow is an absolute nightmare matchup in the paint.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because it's all legislative intent, which is murky shit.  And, taking your example to the extreme, maybe it was only intended to give citizenship to blacks who were born here.

Nonetheless, I think the answer is relatively clear, but because it's relatively clear doesn't mean it's certain to come out that way, because Calvinball.

Those who claim the outcome is certain according to their desired outcome without engaging in analysis are as bad as those who engage in bad analysis to obtain their desired outcome.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Supreme Court could come out with a totally different answer due to Calvinball. But that has nothing to do with legitimate legal analysis, so I'm unclear on what exactly you're scolding  @wildcat09 for. Y'all agree on the clear answer. Y'all agree that the Court could go another way just because. Where's the beef?

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anyone disagrees that Supreme Court could come out with a totally different answer due to Calvinball. But that has nothing to do with legitimate legal analysis, so I'm unclear on what exactly you're scolding  @wildcat09 for. Y'all agree on the clear answer. Y'all agree that the Court could go another way just because. Where's the beef?

Right. Nobody serious and honest believes there’s any real debate here. Sure, someone who is full of shit can come up with a “water isn’t actually wet” type of legal argument, but we shouldn’t treat it as anything other than the bullshit it is. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

oklahoma you say ....

Next school year, thousands of high school students in Oklahoma will be required to learn about Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.   

The lesson will not be part of a course on conspiracy theories, but an official component of the new social studies curriculum.

The new curriculum requires students to "analyze contemporary turning points of 21st-century American society. One task: "Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information."

In March, Walters said the purpose of this section was to teach "students to think for themselves" and "not be spoon-fed left-wing propaganda."  

In fact, the new curriculum is simply an amalgamation of unsupported and debunked claims  

The new curriculum will cost Oklahoma taxpayers at least $33M

 

  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Posted
32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

oklahoma you say ....

Next school year, thousands of high school students in Oklahoma will be required to learn about Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.   

The lesson will not be part of a course on conspiracy theories, but an official component of the new social studies curriculum.

The new curriculum requires students to "analyze contemporary turning points of 21st-century American society. One task: "Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information."

In March, Walters said the purpose of this section was to teach "students to think for themselves" and "not be spoon-fed left-wing propaganda."  

In fact, the new curriculum is simply an amalgamation of unsupported and debunked claims  

The new curriculum will cost Oklahoma taxpayers at least $33M

 

Dotard is outsourcing proof for his claims of “Stolen Election” to a bunch of Okie high schoolers?

Posted
43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, someone who is full of shit can come up with a “water isn’t actually wet” type of legal argument, but we shouldn’t treat it as anything other than the bullshit it is. 

We won't.

SCOTUS will.  Because it's all Calvinball, and only Calvinball, all the time with them.

Posted
36 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

oklahoma you say ....

Next school year, thousands of high school students in Oklahoma will be required to learn about Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.   

The lesson will not be part of a course on conspiracy theories, but an official component of the new social studies curriculum.

The new curriculum requires students to "analyze contemporary turning points of 21st-century American society. One task: "Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information."

In March, Walters said the purpose of this section was to teach "students to think for themselves" and "not be spoon-fed left-wing propaganda."  

In fact, the new curriculum is simply an amalgamation of unsupported and debunked claims  

The new curriculum will cost Oklahoma taxpayers at least $33M

 

That one kid that goes to a good university outside Oklahoma is going to be really fucked when he gets to US Government 101. 

Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because it's all legislative intent, which is murky shit.  And, taking your example to the extreme, maybe it was only intended to give citizenship to blacks who were born here.

Nonetheless, I think the answer is relatively clear, but because it's relatively clear doesn't mean it's certain to come out that way, because Calvinball.

Those who claim the outcome is certain according to their desired outcome without engaging in analysis are as bad as those who engage in bad analysis to obtain their desired outcome.

If these people aren't subject to United States jurisdiction he can't arrest them and deport them to an El Salvador prison so which is it? It is plainly obvious to anyone who can read that the phrase means members of sovereign tribes, children of diplomatic envoys, etc. aren't intended to be covered and that's it. 

It's really kind of impressive in a weird way to watch your ability to maintain an elite level of cognitive dissonance. 

"The nation will be okay because of the guardrails in our legal system. Also *shrugs* I guess he can do whatever he wants because words don't mean anything until lawyers and judges argue about them."

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Dr. Teeth said:

That one kid that goes to a good university outside Oklahoma is going to be really fucked when he gets to US Government 101. 

 

if abbott has his way, it won't happen at UT 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 hours ago, chainsaw said:

So if the history is clear why do you suggest the language injects ambiguity?

History doesn't mean jack shit unless it expands gun rights. 

Posted
7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

oklahoma you say ....

Next school year, thousands of high school students in Oklahoma will be required to learn about Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.   

The lesson will not be part of a course on conspiracy theories, but an official component of the new social studies curriculum.

The new curriculum requires students to "analyze contemporary turning points of 21st-century American society. One task: "Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information."

In March, Walters said the purpose of this section was to teach "students to think for themselves" and "not be spoon-fed left-wing propaganda."  

In fact, the new curriculum is simply an amalgamation of unsupported and debunked claims  

The new curriculum will cost Oklahoma taxpayers at least $33M

 

Link please

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I mean that whole curriculum is pretty much just MAGA propaganda, not just the part about the 2020 election.

 

abbott will soon be copying this 

Edited by tx 3 putt
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

The guy went from "States Rights! Every day I am suing Obama!"

to "how might I please our lords and masters in Washington more? Let us rename the state "Trumpxas" for his birthday party!"

So pathetic.

But as a former student in the Texas school system, they rarely ever get past WWII in Social Studies. So I am not worried what the study curriculum for studying 2020 looks like.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

But as a former student in the Texas school system, they rarely ever get past WWII in Social Studies. So I am not worried what the study curriculum for studying 2020 looks like.

They'll have more time when they hand-wave the period between ~1619 - 1865 when people from Africa were being imported and given "on-the-job-training."

  • Like 2
Posted

I’m disappointed in the Oklahoma satanists. They should have submitted for their own school a year ago. The local Unitarian church is also active in progressive causes and should be doing something too because they are a legitimately universally recognized religious institution.

 

Posted
3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

IMG_3955.thumb.jpeg.3c4423ee0e0ce962551c9ca8edc3fea3.jpeg

 

 

Yeah the teachers are ignoring this bullshit. They’re also supposed to be teaching the Bible and have openly said they aren’t going to do it at least not any different than before i.e., teaching religions role in world history.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
37 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Can you really just rewrite the Constitution by suing people?

Damn. James Madison left that part out of the Federalist Papers.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

The phrase “think tank founded by Stephen Miller” is right up there with “Aggie logic” and “Richard Simmons, pussy slayer” in the all-time oxymoron rankings.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 5/2/2025 at 11:31 AM, 'stache said:

Yeah the teachers are ignoring this bullshit. They’re also supposed to be teaching the Bible and have openly said they aren’t going to do it at least not any different than before i.e., teaching religions role in world history.

Until they're arrested...

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Until they're arrested...

Maybe that's what it takes to light a fire under peoples' asses.  I'd love to see that argument before a jury:

State:  Teacher wasn't teaching about the stollen 2020 election!

Teacher:  I'm sorry, my schedule was already filled with state mandated Math, Science, Reading, History that actually happened...

I'm taking Teacher's side of that argument every time.  

 

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
On 5/1/2025 at 2:57 PM, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anyone disagrees that Supreme Court could come out with a totally different answer due to Calvinball. But that has nothing to do with legitimate legal analysis, so I'm unclear on what exactly you're scolding  @wildcat09 for. Y'all agree on the clear answer. Y'all agree that the Court could go another way just because. Where's the beef?

Because he accuses me of devil's advocacy for explaining how the argument goes.

To me, if you don't understand the problems and illegitimacies in the argument/decision and just criticize the decision, you're pissing in the wind.  

I mean, you're pissing in the wind either way, but it's a real megasquirt in a gale.

Posted

Great episode of On Point from Friday, covering the history and context of birthright citizenship and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's a 45-minute-long interview/conversation with Heather Cox Richardson (full transcript is found in the link below as well).

I'd say anyone who doubts the intent of the 14th Amendment as we've commonly interpreted (until recently) absolutely should find the time to listen. The historical context that she outlines is unambiguous and affirms that, yes, we have indeed been correct that the way we view it today is EXACTLY how it was intended, as written, in the 1860s.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/02/birthright-citizenship-trump-history-heather-cox-richardson

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted

Well, the Court may do away with nationwide injunctions to allow Trump’s patently unconstitutional directives and actions to go into effect - in this case an undoing of birthright citizenship. If a dem ever controls the White House, I bet they reverse course super quickly 

One of the last weapons we had against unconstitutional acts is likely going to be taken away. It’s fitting that Roberts will kill our constitutional order

  • Rage+1 4
Posted
18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Well, the Court may do away with nationwide injunctions to allow Trump’s patently unconstitutional directives and actions to go into effect - in this case an undoing of birthright citizenship. If a dem ever controls the White House, I bet they reverse course super quickly 

One of the last weapons we had against unconstitutional acts is likely going to be taken away. It’s fitting that Roberts will kill our constitutional order*

* Unless that judge is Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, in which case all of his rulings have full nation-wide effect for.....reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Well, the Court may do away with nationwide injunctions to allow Trump’s patently unconstitutional directives and actions to go into effect - in this case an undoing of birthright citizenship. If a dem ever controls the White House, I bet they reverse course super quickly 

One of the last weapons we had against unconstitutional acts is likely going to be taken away. It’s fitting that Roberts will kill our constitutional order

 

  • Rage+1 2


×
×
  • Create New...