Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6d ago
I guess I don't understand why Plyler v. Doe doesn't settle the issue. Quoting subsection (a) of the holding from the syllabus:
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.
The equal protection clause is, itself, the final clause in the first section of the 14th amendment (emphasis added):
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Am I supposed to be reading into this a difference between "subject to" and "within" a state's jurisdiction? Does "jurisdiction" mean something different between two clauses of the same paragraph of the 14th amendment?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
I think compelled civilian deference to the military is the opposite of how it should work. The military exists to serve civil society, not the other way around. There's a reason the Commander in Chief is a civilian.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
You want a constitutional amendment to guarantee veterans priority for boarding and deplaning commercial flights?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
21d ago
I don't disagree but I think a key prerequisite missing here is the President builds support, both in Congress and in the public, before launching hostilities. The President deciding to bomb some people and then everyone has to go along with it so we don't look weak isn't, and ought not be, how it works either.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
22d ago
I just wanna zoom in on this paragraph:
But you see a lot of people with an agenda trying to defang the war effort or get it cancelled or whatever. Many probably don't expect it to happen, they are just trying to set up Trump looking bad. An example of this is probably the war powers resolutions.
Is it your position that Congress passing a resolution compelling the President to cease hostilities is "probably" treasonous?
I suppose Presidents have largely not felt a need for it. I don't think it's a crazy position that the White House should have a larger permanent structure for holding events than the previous ~200 person seating in the East Wing.
How about because it will be ugly? My understanding is the proposed size for the new East Wing is somewhere between 50% and 200% larger than the White House depending on whether you count square footage or three dimensional area. Should the White House be dominated by one of its wings in height and size?
I suspect a lot of people are also disturbed by the process by which this was conducted. Previous significant renovations (construction of the East and West wings, Truman's renovation) were done in conjunction with Congress, paid for by the government. In this case a bunch of private individuals and businesses donated money to Trump (very specifically, not the US government) and the whole thing is being paid for privately. This is conceptually in opposition to the notion that the White House belongs to the government, to We The People, rather than being a possession of whomever happens to be President.
I think opposition being motivated by exclusivity is a weird take. The ballroom is much larger than the building it is replacing. Surely many more people will be invited, not fewer. That's the point of building a larger space to host events.
More options
Context Copy link