Free Republic

By the way, I had a very liberal but very honest constitutional law professor who admitted he was results-oriented, but also admitted that really wasn't the proper constitutional design and was very honest about cases that were poorly reasoned. He told the class that though he liked the result, Plyler v Doe was logically indefensible. He said the same thing about Roe v Wade.

So it made for some very interesting class discussions when a liberal law school professor would essentially side with the conservatives in the class when it came to discussing those cases. It also confused the hell out of the rest of them because he was on their side, but also admitted they were wrong legally, lol.

I just hope it somehow makes it to the Supreme Court. I suppose the best way to do it might be for a state to pass legislation stating that illegals will no longer be able to attempt public schools beginning a few years down the road. The reason for delay is so that potential school sizes and other logistical factors can be taken into account. The real point of the delay is to not expose the states to massive potential damages. But that might be enough standing to get the law challenged in court and before The Supreme Court eventually.

This sounds more like theft from other recipients than fraud on the government, but yeah. Those programs are ripe for abuse.

No. They'd just repeal it between the election and the House certification.

According to the Compact, they could not do that, which is the primary reason I think it is unconstitutional.

I guess this cant be challenged until it becomes a real thing, but its unconstitutional on its face.

I think that is probably correct. The provision of that compact limiting when states can withdraw from it seems to violate the Constitutional provision that states get to choose their own electors.

It might be different if a state passed a law simply saying that its legislature would assign electors based on the popular vote, but the compact goes beyond that by putting additional restrictions on States.

I guess this cant be challenged until it becomes a real thing, but its unconstitutional on its face.

I think that is probably correct. The provision of that compact limiting when states can withdraw from it seems to violate the Constitutional provision that states get to choose their own electors.

It might be different if a state passed a law simply saying that its legislature would assign electors based on the popular vote, but the compact goes beyond that by putting additional restrictions on States.

I should add that I think Plyler v. Doe is one of the most logically indefensible decisions SCOTUS has ever made. It is often cited by pundits for the proposition that it made education a fundamental right, but it didn't. It essentially held that there was no rational basis for a state to exclude the children of illegals from a free education, which is simply absurd. Even if someone believes that would be bad policy, rational basis is a ridiculously low standard that was easily met simply by states not wanting to incur the additional cost/burden.

I do think SCOTUS -- at least this SCOTUS -- would reverse it if such a case made it up to them again. Whether or not the children of illegals should get a free education is a classic legislative policy decision that should be made by the elected representatives of the people.

The voters in the west are in the vary serious process of leaving the confederation.

Canadian law and their Constitution make secession almost impossible, even if Alberta passes a referendum. Right now, they can't even get a referendum on the ballot.

They would have to charge them with civil rights violations, but I’m sure they can think of something.

They already know. The relevant provision would be 18 USC Section 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same....They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

She flipped on him first…

She disagreed with him on this one issue. The idea that you're either 100% with me or you are my enemy is the kind of logic that eventually results on everyone being against you.

Well, try again...

In Trump language.....Carney has no cards.

Carney doesn't need any cards. He's a politician, and all he needs is popularity with the voters. Trump already gave him the only card he needs.

In Trump language.....Carney has no cards.

Canada is at the bureaucratic root....... anti American

More so now than before Trump started the insults. It's a common human reaction - people will react emotionally to being insulted. I mean, the entire point of insulting someone is so they feel insulted, right?

Similar thing happened with Greenland.

Trump has done a lot of very good things, but the gift-wrapped present he handed to Carney in 2025 was not one of them.

Conservative Pierre Poilievre was the favorite prior to Trump's election in 2025. The unpleasant truth is that people in general do not like feeling like they or their country are being insulted/bullied. While some of us say that Trump is an "alpha", and thought his comments about Canada being the 51st state, etc., were funny, a lot of Canadians did not.

But it's your assumption that the “expansive definition” was meant to “apply to illegals” in Ark.

First, Eastman and Meese don't bother making that point. They basically set up a dichotomy of two different interpretations without arguing (as you just did) that they should win under Wong Kim Ark anyway. In other words, in excluding 8 USC 1401(a)(1952), Eastman and Meese should have explained its intent in the context of Wong Kim Ark, not the prior interpretation of the 14th. And that's because those who passed it in 1952 would have been going off the understand of the Amendment under Wong Kim Ark.

Second -- and this really gets to the core of the whole thing -- is whether the definition contained in the 14th Amendment should be read as exclusionary, or inclusionary. By "exclusionary" I mean - do you read the 14th as saying "Everyone born in this country excluding this one specific class of people (who are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof) is a citizen?" Because if you read it that way, any future group or class of people not contemplated at the time of the 14th would still be citizens as long as they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

In other words, the legal burden for birthright citizenship isn't to show there was intent to include illegals, but rather you'd have to show there was an intent to exclude them. And if you can't show that, they're citizens at birth.

The alternative view of the 14th is that they were not giving birthright citizenship to everyone except a very specific group, but rather only to the specific groups covered by the amendment at that time. Because illegals didn't exist at that time, there was no intent to include them at the time the 14th was passed, so it doesn't apply to them.

Personally, I think arguing for the "inclusive" view is the best argument against birthright citizenship for illegals. Although I'd still say that it needs to be done via legislation overturning 8 USC 1408, not Executive Order.

I will say that I don't think the broad definition some have given to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - that you can't be a citizen of another country -- makes a lot of sense. It's just trying to stretch the text into something it doesn't say. To me, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" covers diplomatic immunity, and that's it.

I do think this case presents a very stark contrast between originalism (what some might call "original intent), and plain textualism. I think Trump has a better shot under originalism than textualism, but I also think Gorsuch, as the most textualist-oriented of the conservative justices, is most likely to rule against Trump.

Well,we didn’t accept your conditions so you have your answer.

Maybe this result was part of the reason behind Jefferson saying we need a revolution every 25 years. Power is just too tempting and inevitably attracts the wrong kind of people.

A bunch of eastern European Jews invaded British Palestine.

They moved there when it was entirely legal to do so, purchasing their land from locals more than happy to sell. When the British had elections in the Mandate, the Jews won in those lands.

As a lawyer who attended one of those elite law schools, I'd definitely favor Reform #1. You pass the bar exam, you're allowed to practice whether you attended law school or not.

#2 is logistically impractical, and also unconstitutional with respect to private schools. #3 also is unconstitutional as stated, although you could do a variation of 2) and 3) in which the feds refused to give student loans to schools that didn't comply.

DeSantis isn’t particularly flashy or charismatic, but the man knows how to govern effectively and very, very rarely makes mistakes on which his opponents can capitalize.