rayiner

22 ms·

601.
by rayiner 4mo ago
I find it hilarious that the potential effect on EU law didn’t factor into the arguments in this case on either side. I’m not sure anybody involved even knew that the EU relied on FTC independence. Not that it’s relevant to the legal questi
602.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> it's not their influence on modern principles and their related concepts that's in question No, that’s exactly the question. You’re saying that the constitution protects non-white people less because it was written by white p
603.
by rayiner 4mo ago
They wrote the most influential constitution in the world which has governed the longest-lived extant republic. Most who claim to be smarter have offered mere ideas, never implemented in a real country. Such academic notions often self-dest
604.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> you were a black man would you have been disenfranchised when those laws were in force? In a counter-factual world where the founders hadn’t exported their ideas all over the world, I’d be disenfranchised in my own home country! Becaus
605.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it. They were exceedingly good at it. In my country’s constitution we have all sorts of things from the american constitution, like due process, because we literally hav
606.
by rayiner 4mo ago
It’s not seriously contested anymore. Originalism won and now we are just fighting about how to apply it.
607.
by rayiner 4mo ago
That’s a plausible meaning but it erases the exceptions for diplomats and Indians that everyone agrees exist.
608.
by rayiner 4mo ago
You brought up race. I’m just responding.
609.
by rayiner 4mo ago
It doesn’t cover diplomats either because courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain non-criminal matter. > vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith What’s “bad faith” about it?
610.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.
611.
by rayiner 4mo ago
We have no concept of free speech, due process, or individual rights in Asia where I’m from. Where I’m from, if the community doesn’t like you, we can just drive you out of the community. Am I “disenfranchised” by having to live in a libera
612.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Yes, but my point is that Wong Kim Ark is internally inconsistent. It doesn’t explain how the exclusion of Indians follows from its idea of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. Let me put it this way. What is a definition of “subject t
613.
by rayiner 4mo ago
No, it’s the opposite. In this case, everyone agreed that the “and” means both conditions must hold. Everyone agrees that someone must be both (1) born in the US and (2) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Under your reading, the whole
614.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Well, a word can have different meanings in different contexts but still have a clear meanings in each particular context. But I agree that “jurisdiction” doesn’t have a well defined meaning in the context of individuals being subject to th
615.
by rayiner 4mo ago
That’s how the Supreme Court always interprets “and” in a list of conditions.
616.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Correct. Children of diplomats born on U.S. soil aren’t covered by the 14th amendment, even though they are subject to U.S. law and can be sued in U.S. courts over many things notwithstanding diplomatic immunity.
617.
by rayiner 4mo ago
What does "subject to the jurisdiction" "obviously" mean, keeping in mind that everyone agrees children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?
618.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Jurisdiction is not some singular concept that means the same thing in every context. You can have jurisdiction over some things in some contexts and not have jurisdiction over other things in other contexts.
619.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> Your deleted post elsewhere mentioned the text of the 1866 civil rights act stating not subject to a foreign power, but the amendment uses this text instead. IMHO, that shows awareness of the issue and a different choice. Couldn't
620.
by rayiner 4mo ago
No, the "and" functions the same way as in programming: "(born or naturalized in the U.S.) && (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)" requires both things to be true.
621.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Where does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertain
622.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory. Whet
623.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. Diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes, but that's different than being outside the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. For example,
624.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> If an illegal immigrant kills a person while in the US, they get tried according to US law. If a diplomat kills a person in the US, they do not get tried because the US has no jurisdiction over that diplomat. Diplomats have diplomatic
625.
by rayiner 4mo ago
So what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean, from a textualist standpoint? The word “jurisdiction” in the law can have different meanings in different contexts. What does it mean here?
626.
by rayiner 4mo ago
> who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders. That doesn’t quite work, because diplomats and invaders do have to follow US laws and can be tried in U.S. courts. In Ex Parte Quirin , for example, nobody do
627.
by rayiner 4mo ago
This is a great summary! This is a case where all the opinions are quite good. I quite like Jackson’s opinion here. The framers of the 14th amendment were radical egalitarians and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
628.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Diplomats have some immunities but are not categorically outside the jurisdiction of US laws. For example, they can be sued for “commercial activity” outside the scope of their duties. If a diplomat sells you fake Hermes bags passing them o
629.
by rayiner 4mo ago
I’m not saying it’s literally a tree. My point is that we need vastly more power to upgrade to the next level of civilization.
630.
by rayiner 4mo ago
Incorrect. Compare Bangladesh to the United States.

More ›