Bravo Peter - one of your most brilliant! Just as I read a paragraph and think, “I can’t possibly become more impressed by this man”, you upstage yourself with your next bit of perfect reasoning, then your next, and your next.
Okay, the Supreme Court needs to address and clarify a whole slew of words, phrases, paragraphs, and concepts per…
Bravo Peter - one of your most brilliant! Just as I read a paragraph and think, “I can’t possibly become more impressed by this man”, you upstage yourself with your next bit of perfect reasoning, then your next, and your next.
Okay, the Supreme Court needs to address and clarify a whole slew of words, phrases, paragraphs, and concepts pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment. This will have a ripple effect of one can of worms opening after another, but it’s got to be done - and done as objectively and apolitically as possible. For example, the phrase “ in conflict with” - does this mean a Constitutionally-valid war declared by Congress? Or just any policy-based disagreement with another country? They need to nail this down, as specifically as possible.
Clarifying all of these may mean they will also need to revisit previous Court rulings. Would it result in, for example, rulings pertaining to tribal vs US matters for Native Americans? They aren’t going to want to tackle this, but that may be the ripple effect.
I always love your wit, Peter. “CNN, the Most Busted Name in Fake News” - heh, heh, heh. And your subtlety: “This is a sweeping generalization that is, like all generalizations, fundamentally false.” My God, I adore you!
Interesting you bring up “clarify . . . words, phrases, paragraphs, and concepts.” Peter, this relates to our “pardons” thread and the conflicts between letter of the law and spirit of the law. For example, “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” One fair read of that is “freedom of religion.” Another is “within implied limits,” which seems certain in the context of Barbary pirates and wild Indians.
Regarding the First Amendment's protections on the freedom of religion, the key word is "respecting", which in the American English of the day held the following definition:
"RESPECT'ING, participle present tense Regarding; having regard to; relating to."
In other words, Congress is precluded from passing any law which touches on any church or denomination, or even faith. The immediate impetus for this particular binding upon Congress was the religious laws and requirements for holding public office found in England--we should not forget that many of the colonies were founded by religious refugees from England--and which were a part of British law up into the 19th century.
Since the prohibition is categorical and absolute, there are no "limits" which may be implied. Much as with the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech or infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, the prohibition on religious laws is categorical. The whole corpus of such law is clearly and unambiguously in the "thou shalt not" column.
While "conflict" often means the alien is from a country with whom we are at war, that is not necessarily the case.
For example, a Russian emigre could, in the present circumstance of the war in Ukraine, be counted as a possible "enemy alien". Likewise a person from mainland China. In neither case is the United States technically at war, but few would argue that a conflict exists between Russia and the United States, and between China and the United States.
However, the understanding of the term "enemy alien" is, I believe, already well established within international law and does not require further clarification. Where clarification should be made is that anyone being given a permanent resident status (i.e., a "green card") needs to affirmatively repudiate such governments and policies with which the United States takes issue. Ideally, acceptance of a permanent resident status should entail a declaration of allegiance to the United States not unlike the oath of citizenship. A person who cannot in good conscience take such an oath would not then be able to, in good conscience, take the oath of citizenship.
We do not need more "citizens" such as Ilhan Omar who regularly despises the country that has taken her into its embrace.
Ilhan is, unfortunately, my congresswoman. I supported her opponent in the primary, but because the Democratic Party machine in Minneapolis is as corrupt as that of Chicago, he did not win. It felt like a death blow to my city. I object to her on so many grounds that it would take a book to list them all. I sure hope that some aspect of Trump’s administration proves to be her political undoing!
Bravo Peter - one of your most brilliant! Just as I read a paragraph and think, “I can’t possibly become more impressed by this man”, you upstage yourself with your next bit of perfect reasoning, then your next, and your next.
Okay, the Supreme Court needs to address and clarify a whole slew of words, phrases, paragraphs, and concepts pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment. This will have a ripple effect of one can of worms opening after another, but it’s got to be done - and done as objectively and apolitically as possible. For example, the phrase “ in conflict with” - does this mean a Constitutionally-valid war declared by Congress? Or just any policy-based disagreement with another country? They need to nail this down, as specifically as possible.
Clarifying all of these may mean they will also need to revisit previous Court rulings. Would it result in, for example, rulings pertaining to tribal vs US matters for Native Americans? They aren’t going to want to tackle this, but that may be the ripple effect.
I always love your wit, Peter. “CNN, the Most Busted Name in Fake News” - heh, heh, heh. And your subtlety: “This is a sweeping generalization that is, like all generalizations, fundamentally false.” My God, I adore you!
Interesting you bring up “clarify . . . words, phrases, paragraphs, and concepts.” Peter, this relates to our “pardons” thread and the conflicts between letter of the law and spirit of the law. For example, “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” One fair read of that is “freedom of religion.” Another is “within implied limits,” which seems certain in the context of Barbary pirates and wild Indians.
Regarding the First Amendment's protections on the freedom of religion, the key word is "respecting", which in the American English of the day held the following definition:
"RESPECT'ING, participle present tense Regarding; having regard to; relating to."
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/respecting
The word holds fundamentally the same definition today.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respecting
In other words, Congress is precluded from passing any law which touches on any church or denomination, or even faith. The immediate impetus for this particular binding upon Congress was the religious laws and requirements for holding public office found in England--we should not forget that many of the colonies were founded by religious refugees from England--and which were a part of British law up into the 19th century.
Since the prohibition is categorical and absolute, there are no "limits" which may be implied. Much as with the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech or infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, the prohibition on religious laws is categorical. The whole corpus of such law is clearly and unambiguously in the "thou shalt not" column.
While "conflict" often means the alien is from a country with whom we are at war, that is not necessarily the case.
For example, a Russian emigre could, in the present circumstance of the war in Ukraine, be counted as a possible "enemy alien". Likewise a person from mainland China. In neither case is the United States technically at war, but few would argue that a conflict exists between Russia and the United States, and between China and the United States.
However, the understanding of the term "enemy alien" is, I believe, already well established within international law and does not require further clarification. Where clarification should be made is that anyone being given a permanent resident status (i.e., a "green card") needs to affirmatively repudiate such governments and policies with which the United States takes issue. Ideally, acceptance of a permanent resident status should entail a declaration of allegiance to the United States not unlike the oath of citizenship. A person who cannot in good conscience take such an oath would not then be able to, in good conscience, take the oath of citizenship.
We do not need more "citizens" such as Ilhan Omar who regularly despises the country that has taken her into its embrace.
Ilhan is, unfortunately, my congresswoman. I supported her opponent in the primary, but because the Democratic Party machine in Minneapolis is as corrupt as that of Chicago, he did not win. It felt like a death blow to my city. I object to her on so many grounds that it would take a book to list them all. I sure hope that some aspect of Trump’s administration proves to be her political undoing!