Activist Federal judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship ban for all infants, testing lower court powers

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Where does the 14th say they have to be subject to ALL our laws. The construction governs FEDERAL laws states govern state law. Regardless Indians live on land that the US owns and are subject to many Federal Laws. So why didn't the fourteen cover them . WHY did Congress have to pass an entire act to give them citizenship.

Where does it say that they can only be subject to some laws?

But let's assume that you are correct about only some laws. That leads to the following.
You are saying that Indians should have been covered under the 14th. You are making a strong argument for why it was wrong to not allow Indians to be citizens at birth. Because one group was denied their rights under the Constitution doesn't mean you can then deny another group their rights. The result of your argument is that you can't deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants because undocumented immigrants are subject to some laws when in the US.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So why did Congress have to pass the Snyder act to give them citizenship. They live on land OWNED by the Federal government they can't sell it because it is against the law. If they kill an American citizen they can be prosecuted by our laws. They clearly are subject to our jurisdiction. Why were they American citizens.

In 1870, If an Indian killed another Indian on land owned by the US government they could not be prosecuted under US laws. They were only subject to tribal law. If an Indian stole from another Indian on land owned by the US government they could not be prosecuted under US laws. They were only subject to tribal law. If an Indian was born on land owned by the US government they were not subject to US laws since the act of being born did not involve a US citizen.

 

[Truth Detector]

I explained that to him. He screeched.

You don't explain anything, you whiny brainless thread trolling halfwit. But you've got looking stupid, lying and trolling down.

 

[Truth Detector]

Already explained multiple times. As @Into the Night would love to say, RQAA.

Lie, lame and retarded as usual.

 

[AProudLefty]

Lie, lame and retarded as usual.

You're like @Into the Night, pretending to know what I said.

 

[Truth Detector]

Where does it say that they can only be subject to some laws?

But let's assume that you are correct about only some laws. That leads to the following.
You are saying that Indians should have been covered under the 14th. You are making a strong argument for why it was wrong to not allow Indians to be citizens at birth. Because one group was denied their rights under the Constitution doesn't mean you can then deny another group their rights. The result of your argument is that you can't deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants because undocumented immigrants are subject to some laws when in the US.

Again, "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF" dumbass.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means - The Federalist Blog

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States citizens by

www.federalistblog.us

 

[Truth Detector]

You're like @Into the Night, pretending to know what I said.

You're like a brainless low IQ dumb fuck who thinks he said something factual.

 

[AProudLefty]

You're like a brainless low IQ dumb fuck who thinks he said something factual.

Proving my point.

All you do is copy and pasting opinion pieces, posting gifs and attacking other posters.

The only thing you've contribute is humor.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF" dumbass.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means - The Federalist Blog

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States citizens by

www.federalistblog.us

The funniest part of your claim about "complete allegiance" is it would require that the US take away the citizenship of anyone who has dual citizenship. Why are you promoting antisemitism since every Jewish person is allowed to have dual Israeli citizenship?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You might want to actually read the ruling before you tell the world you are an ignorant fool. If a class action follows Rule 23, it applies universally to all members of the class even if they are not party to the suit.

The bill of peace lives in modern form, but not as the uni-
versal injunction. It evolved into the modern class action,
which is governed in federal court by Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. 7A Wright, Federal Practice and
Procedure §1751, at 10 (“It was the English bill of peace
that developed into what is now known as the class action”);
see Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32, 41 (1940) (“The class suit
was an invention of equity”). And while Rule 23 is in some
ways “more restrictive of representative suits than the orig-
inal bills of peace,” Rodgers v. Bryant, 942 F. 3d 451, 464
(CA8 2019) (Stras, J., concurring), it would still be recog-
nizable to an English Chancellor.
[snip]
Rule 23’s limits on class actions underscore a significant
problem with universal injunctions. A “ ‘properly conducted
class action,’ ” we have said, “can come about in federal
courts in just one way—through the procedure set out in
Rule 23.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U. S. 299, 315 (2011);
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a) (“One or more members of a class
may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all
members only if ” Rule 23(a)’s requirements are satisfied
(emphasis added)).

Ohh, obfuscation.

Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below,but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Pp. 4–26.(a) The issue raised by these applications—whether Congress has granted federal courts authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order—plainly warrants this Court’s review. On multiple occasions, and across administrations, the Solicitor General has asked the Court to consider the propriety of this expansive remedy. As the number of universal injunctions has increased over the years, so too has the importance of the issue. Pp. 4–5.(b) The Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (holding that for a stay application to be granted, the applicant must make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits). The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

You can't lie reality away, Poor Dick.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Ohh, obfuscation.

Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below,but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Pp. 4–26.(a) The issue raised by these applications—whether Congress has granted federal courts authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order—plainly warrants this Court’s review. On multiple occasions, and across administrations, the Solicitor General has asked the Court to consider the propriety of this expansive remedy. As the number of universal injunctions has increased over the years, so too has the importance of the issue. Pp. 4–5.(b) The Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (holding that for a stay application to be granted, the applicant must make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits). The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

You can't lie reality away, Poor Dick.

You can't ignore the rest of the ruling and pretend it doesn't exist.
The desired result is complete relief. The only way to grant complete relief is to grant it to everyone that is part of the class even if not party to the lawsuit.

The bill of peace lives in modern form, but not as the universal in-
junction. It is instead analogous to the modern class action—which, in
federal court, is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure. See ibid. Rule 23 requires numerosity (such that joinder is
impracticable), common questions of law or fact, typicality, and repre-
sentative parties who adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a). The requirements for a bill of peace were
virtually identical. See 7A Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure
§1751, at 10 and n. 4. By forging a shortcut to relief that benefits par-
ties and nonparties alike, universal injunctions impermissibly circum-
vent Rule 23’s procedural protections. Pp. 12–15.
[snip]
The Government’s applications for partial stays of the preliminary injunc-
tions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are
broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with
standing to sue. P. 26.
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting. Are you saying the 14th amendment doesn't make anyone a citizen of the state they are born in?

You of the radical and extreme left hold that the Executive Branch is an inferior branch of government which is subservient the the judicial and must beg permission from every two bit district court in order to execute the enumerated powers of Article II.

But now you seem to demand that district courts are all powerful and answer to no one, not even the Supreme Court. Comrade LaPlante is openly defying TRUMP v. CASA with his sedition. Perhaps you have been convinced by that illiterate moron @Jarod that the district courts are above the appellate courts and above the Supreme Court, the ultimate rulers?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't ignore the rest of the ruling and pretend it doesn't exist.
The desired result is complete relief. The only way to grant complete relief is to grant it to everyone that is part of the class even if not party to the lawsuit.

The bill of peace lives in modern form, but not as the universal in-
junction. It is instead analogous to the modern class action—which, in
federal court, is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure. See ibid. Rule 23 requires numerosity (such that joinder is
impracticable), common questions of law or fact, typicality, and repre-
sentative parties who adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a). The requirements for a bill of peace were
virtually identical. See 7A Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure
§1751, at 10 and n. 4. By forging a shortcut to relief that benefits par-
ties and nonparties alike, universal injunctions impermissibly circum-
vent Rule 23’s procedural protections. Pp. 12–15.
[snip]
The Government’s applications for partial stays of the preliminary injunc-
tions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are
broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with
standing to sue. P. 26.
.

Your attempt at obfuscation is dismissed. The section you quote is analogous to circuit court actions that provide consolidation of similar actions by district courts which act as a class action type mechanism. Your misunderstanding aside, this confirms that the district court has authority only within the district and must yield to the circuit court to consolidate such actions.

 

[Into the Night]

Already explained multiple times. As @Into the Night would love to say, RQAA.

A denial is not an explanation, LeftNut. Blatant lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Where does the 14th say they have to be subject to ALL our laws. The construction governs FEDERAL laws states govern state law. Regardless Indians live on land that the US owns and are subject to many Federal Laws. So why didn't the fourteen cover them . WHY did Congress have to pass an entire act to give them citizenship.

A subject of jurisdiction is not about being subject to a law. It's about being a subject (citizen) of a nation. Illegal aliens are citizens of the nation they came from. That means they are subject to the jurisdiction of their originating nation.

Any offspring they have while in the United States are subject to the same jurisdiction of their parents, and are immediately subject to deportation along with the mother.

NOTHING in the Constitution (as amended) gives magickal citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring.

 

[Into the Night]

You never explained it with facts. You have no real answer for it.

He never explained it at all. He's just blatantly lying again.

 

[Into the Night]

You of the radical and extreme left hold that the Executive Branch is an inferior branch of government which is subservient the the judicial and must beg permission from every two bit district court in order to execute the enumerated powers of Article II.

But now you seem to demand that district courts are all powerful and answer to no one, not even the Supreme Court. Comrade LaPlante is openly defying TRUMP v. CASA with his sedition. Perhaps you have been convinced by that illiterate moron @Jarod that the district courts are above the appellate courts and above the Supreme Court, the ultimate rulers?

NO court, not even the Supreme Court has any authority over Trump's authority of the executive branch, nor over his authority and directive to defend the nation.

NO court has any authority to order troops or ICE out of Los Angeles.
NO court has any authority to order Trump to not arrest and deport illegal aliens.

Not even the Supreme Court.

 

[Into the Night]

Your attempt at obfuscation is dismissed. The section you quote is analogous to circuit court actions that provide consolidation of similar actions by district courts which act as a class action type mechanism. Your misunderstanding aside, this confirms that the district court has authority only within the district and must yield to the circuit court to consolidate such actions.

And ONLY to the plaintiff and defendant. They have NO authority outside of those two parties. They have NO authority to write law or to issue edicts.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your attempt at obfuscation is dismissed. The section you quote is analogous to circuit court actions that provide consolidation of similar actions by district courts which act as a class action type mechanism. Your misunderstanding aside, this confirms that the district court has authority only within the district and must yield to the circuit court to consolidate such actions.

The section I quoted cites Federal rule 23 which says nothing about consolidating similar cases.

Rule 23. Class Actions

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You of the radical and extreme left hold that the Executive Branch is an inferior branch of government which is subservient the the judicial and must beg permission from every two bit district court in order to execute the enumerated powers of Article II.

But now you seem to demand that district courts are all powerful and answer to no one, not even the Supreme Court. Comrade LaPlante is openly defying TRUMP v. CASA with his sedition. Perhaps you have been convinced by that illiterate moron @Jarod that the district courts are above the appellate courts and above the Supreme Court, the ultimate rulers?

Non sequitor on your part.
The 14th amendment makes a person born in the US a US citizen and also a citizen of the state they are born in.