Startlingly, the liberals are right. Are "anchor babies" and other illegals "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Of course they are. Anyone who can be prosecuted for a crime in Federal court is subject to Federal jurisdiction. That is what the words mean after all.(Whether or not they will be prosecuted is another matter.) The problems is not the justices but the Amendment itself.
This is far from the first tyranny to result from the 14th Amendment. As was noted at the time, such a stunning centralization of power could only have ever been ratified in one way, by States with guns to their heads, which as we know is what happened. The Southern states ratified the amendment explicitly as a condition of the removal of ravaging hordes of soldiers from their lands.
It is unlikely to ever be amended by the constitutionally specified method but reamendment is not the just or right way to remove this. The proper course, is for a state which received the "offer they couldn't refuse" to sue the Federal government for annulment on the grounds of coercion. Unfortunately all of the government of my own beloved Georgia are craven parasites. Any southerners got a decent government?
I contextualize this in the same category of 'suicidal empathy,' only not as emotionally acute. These are high-status, feminized people (mostly women, especially on the Court) who simply cannot bring themselves to be mean to "marginalized groups." There is no rule or law which can overcome this tendency in women, I've come to believe. It's necessary to distance them farther from centers of power. Otherwise all future attempted reforms will run into this same gelatinous, sentimental quicksand.
so the supreme court decides anti american non citizens can vote and decide what happens in the country sounds like enemy action
Startlingly, the liberals are right. Are "anchor babies" and other illegals "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Of course they are. Anyone who can be prosecuted for a crime in Federal court is subject to Federal jurisdiction. That is what the words mean after all.(Whether or not they will be prosecuted is another matter.) The problems is not the justices but the Amendment itself.
This is far from the first tyranny to result from the 14th Amendment. As was noted at the time, such a stunning centralization of power could only have ever been ratified in one way, by States with guns to their heads, which as we know is what happened. The Southern states ratified the amendment explicitly as a condition of the removal of ravaging hordes of soldiers from their lands.
It is unlikely to ever be amended by the constitutionally specified method but reamendment is not the just or right way to remove this. The proper course, is for a state which received the "offer they couldn't refuse" to sue the Federal government for annulment on the grounds of coercion. Unfortunately all of the government of my own beloved Georgia are craven parasites. Any southerners got a decent government?
I contextualize this in the same category of 'suicidal empathy,' only not as emotionally acute. These are high-status, feminized people (mostly women, especially on the Court) who simply cannot bring themselves to be mean to "marginalized groups." There is no rule or law which can overcome this tendency in women, I've come to believe. It's necessary to distance them farther from centers of power. Otherwise all future attempted reforms will run into this same gelatinous, sentimental quicksand.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/performative-compassion-and-suicidal
It was Andrew Johnson who vetoed, and technically what he vetoed was the Civil Rights Act of 1866.