[GrandEagle]

I actually think defining the jurisdiction that way is a great idea.
Depends on your objective. If the objective is to win, then it may be good.
However, if your objective is to try and maintain a Constitutionally functioning government it is a VERY poor one IMHO.
I adamantly oppose abortion. However, I would also oppose efforts where congress redefined "abortion" as being removing stale gasoline from your lawnmower.
This game could be played over and over and the effect would be that we have no Constitution.
The Constitution if the very document that grants the Federal Government its authority. We can not allow anyone to render it completely meaningless.

Just an opinion.

GE

[chronic_loser]

It sounds like it would only work if we defined the "jurisdiction of the US" as any birthing room of an illegal immigrant, now that I have a bit of time to think about it. I can't see that surviving SCOTUS review, whether it is smart to do it or not.

I gotta admit, though, it was novel and a different approach. I had never heard it before.

I really don't think we are going to fix this situation till we find a populace and a congress who have courage enough to tell both the labor union Buchananite xenophobes and the leftist welfare advocates both to piss off. Both equally. I don't see it happening.

[highball]

Depends on your objective. If the objective is to win, then (redefining jurisdiction) may be good.

However, if your objective is to try and maintain a Constitutionally functioning government it is a VERY poor one IMHO.

I agree - it seems to me that the only reason redefining jurisdiction is even being discussed is because we know an amendment's not going to pass.

So we're using legalisms and technicalities to get around a provision of the Constitution. That's a Lib trick and unworthy of us.