President Trump- The Implications

[cannon_fodder]

It would not require an amendment to change it so that aliens here illegally would not be afforded the right of citizenship, since the law is ambiguous enough and no court has actually ruled on it. Which was my point.

Where do you get these ideas?  I'm assuming this is a talking point, but the law in this area has been a basic tenant of American law for nearly 200 years. It is something that Congress could try to change, thus forcing the Court to address the newly invented issue of illegal immigrants, but at the moment is not ambiguous at all. If you wanted to be assured a change conforms to the US Constitution, an Amendment is the only avenue.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

You misinterpret the Wong Kim Ark case.  The basic holding of that case was the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  The argument was that a Chinese person who is a subject of the Emperor of China is under the jurisdiction of a foreign power and cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States.  The Court held, and every subsequent court has held, that the phrase means generally subject to the laws of the land (hence: not an official of a foreign power).  The framers were well aware of the English concept of jus sanguinis (inherited citizenship) and consciously opted for the inclusion of jus soli (right of  soil).

What other clause in the 14th Amendment is ambiguous?

Heck, we could take Ark further.  The parents in Ark were legally forbidden from becoming citizen of the US because Chinese immigrants were the people to pick on at that time. The argument from the opposition is the same basic argument you are making now:  the parents were not welcome here, the children should not be either.  That notion was rejected.

Plus - all this anti immigrant hype is confusing to me anyway.  We have a low birthrate and low unemployment. From a purely economic  perspective fighting to keep workers out is strange (and yes, I think it should be done by expanding legal immigration.  But we aren't doing anything on that front either). Unless, of course, you believe the lies that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and murderers (maybe we can go back to claiming all Chinese immigrants were whatever we said they were!).

- - - -

Fair question, is someone driving a rental car and doesn't have their name on the agreement not probably cause for cops? Stolen vehicle potentially. He also had prior drug and weapons violations which they were aware of prior to the search. He was actually in violation of the agreement at that point (not sure the cops knew this or not, but I'm sure if they read hard enough they would see it). They did find 49 bricks of heroin in this particular vehicle by the way, so the fact that this made it to the Supreme Court (only to be remanded) is kind of comical.

Again, where are you getting your ideas?  This is exactly why the 4th Amendment is dying and why Americans barely deserve the freedom won and codified by our Founding Fathers. We, as a society, are ignorant of the purpose of our rights. Huge segments of our citizens are happy to see the government's power grow and add more and more exceptions and caveats to the 4th Amendment. As long as it's happening to "them" and you "have nothing to hide,"  because the government could never abuse its power against you.

What police might have known is irrelevant to the formation of probable cause - only what they actually knew at the time.  What they found after the search is usually not instructive in determining if the stop/search was legal (read the case:  it is the search not the stop being questioned.  They knew about the rental agreement before searching).  In fact - I've never seen a 4th Amendment case that doesn't end with the police finding something because there is essentially no remedy for an illegal search that doesn't result in an arrest. "But he was guilty" is utterly irrelevant to the application of the 4th Amendment or it would be meaningless.

In the case referenced, they never got to the actual merits of the search. The appeal was simply based on the ruling that anyone not on the rental agreement basically waves their 4th Amendment rights - which the Court pointed out is not correct.  I think nearly everyone who borrows a friend's rental vehicle would think the contents of the vehicle were still generally private and that the police were not free to stop and search the vehicle as they pleased.

The lower Court will now reach the merits of the search (not on the agreement, nervous, excon, was enough probable cause to search).   I'm not sure how that will go because those factors  in and of themselves certainly dont seem that odd - people borrow rental cars all the time and there are tons of ex cons who are nervous when interacting with police.  once the joint was disclosed, I suspect the search was legal. The police were clearly trying to do their job and found themselves in a tough spot... strongly suspecting the guy was up to no good, but also aware they didn't have a strong basis to search.  The police job is to try to get the job done within the rules, the Courts then sort out if they did it right... so I'm not criticizing the offers here.

But to throw out the reasonable expectation of privacy test is to severely limit the 4th Amendment and by extension greatly expand the power of government. You can frame it as being "true to the original" if you want, but if that's the case we need to strike the vast majority of American law, governance, and practice.  Essentially, start over. That doesn't scream stability and even most originalists only want that policy to control select areas they want to change.

Few protections are as essential to individual liberty as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Framers made that right explicit in the Bill of Rights following their experience with the indignities and invasions of privacy wrought by "general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence." Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 761 (1969). Ever mindful of the Fourth Amendment and its history, the Court has viewed with disfavor practices that permit "police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332, 345 (2009)

- - - -

[erfalf]

Where do you get these ideas?  I'm assuming this is a talking point, but the law in this area has been a basic tenant of American law for nearly 200 years. It is something that Congress could try to change, thus forcing the Court to address the newly invented issue of illegal immigrants, but at the moment is not ambiguous at all. If you wanted to be assured a change conforms to the US Constitution, an Amendment is the only avenue.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

From the Congressional Research Service paper that I previously linked. It may be a so called "talking point", but it has legitimately been discussed in law circles.

You misinterpret the Wong Kim Ark case.  The basic holding of that case was the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  The argument was that a Chinese person who is a subject of the Emperor of China is under the jurisdiction of a foreign power and cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States.  The Court held, and every subsequent court has held, that the phrase means generally subject to the laws of the land (hence: not an official of a foreign power).  The framers were well aware of the English concept of jus sanguinis (inherited citizenship) and consciously opted for the inclusion of jus soli (right of  soil).

What other clause in the 14th Amendment is ambiguous?

Heck, we could take Ark further.  The parents in Ark were legally forbidden from becoming citizen of the US because Chinese immigrants were the people to pick on at that time. The argument from the opposition is the same basic argument you are making now:  the parents were not welcome here, the children should not be either.  That notion was rejected.

Plus - all this anti immigrant hype is confusing to me anyway.  We have a low birthrate and low unemployment. From a purely economic  perspective fighting to keep workers out is strange (and yes, I think it should be done by expanding legal immigration.  But we aren't doing anything on that front either). Unless, of course, you believe the lies that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and murderers (maybe we can go back to claiming all Chinese immigrants were whatever we said they were!).

I think you are taking it a bit too far in your hypothetical arguments. It's pretty plain what the case was about a non-naturalized, yet legally residing person's child. Quite different than what I have been discussing. I don't really give a smile who comes and goes (obviously I would care to keep terrorists out and what not).

Again, where are you getting your ideas?  This is exactly why the 4th Amendment is dying and why Americans barely deserve the freedom won and codified by our Founding Fathers. We, as a society, are ignorant of the purpose of our rights. Huge segments of our citizens are happy to see the government's power grow and add more and more exceptions and caveats to the 4th Amendment. As long as it's happening to "them" and you "have nothing to hide,"  because the government could never abuse its power against you.

What police might have known is irrelevant to the formation of probable cause - only what they actually knew at the time.  What they found after the search is usually not instructive in determining if the stop/search was legal (read the case:  it is the search not the stop being questioned.  They knew about the rental agreement before searching).  In fact - I've never seen a 4th Amendment case that doesn't end with the police finding something because there is essentially no remedy for an illegal search that doesn't result in an arrest. "But he was guilty" is utterly irrelevant to the application of the 4th Amendment or it would be meaningless.

In the case referenced, they never got to the actual merits of the search. The appeal was simply based on the ruling that anyone not on the rental agreement basically waves their 4th Amendment rights - which the Court pointed out is not correct.  I think nearly everyone who borrows a friend's rental vehicle would think the contents of the vehicle were still generally private and that the police were not free to stop and search the vehicle as they pleased.

The lower Court will now reach the merits of the search (not on the agreement, nervous, excon, was enough probable cause to search).   I'm not sure how that will go because those factors  in and of themselves certainly dont seem that odd - people borrow rental cars all the time and there are tons of ex cons who are nervous when interacting with police.  once the joint was disclosed, I suspect the search was legal. The police were clearly trying to do their job and found themselves in a tough spot... strongly suspecting the guy was up to no good, but also aware they didn't have a strong basis to search.  The police job is to try to get the job done within the rules, the Courts then sort out if they did it right... so I'm not criticizing the offers here.

But to throw out the reasonable expectation of privacy test is to severely limit the 4th Amendment and by extension greatly expand the power of government. You can frame it as being "true to the original" if you want, but if that's the case we need to strike the vast majority of American law, governance, and practice.  Essentially, start over. That doesn't scream stability and even most originalists only want that policy to control select areas they want to change.

- - - -

Again, I asked if the police had probable cause, not whether this case was adjudicated correctly.

I really respect you and am in awe of your knowledge, however in both instances you rebutted a point I didn't make. I probably should have been clearer.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Fair question, is someone driving a rental car and doesn't have their name on the agreement not probably cause for cops? Stolen vehicle potentially. He also had prior drug and weapons violations which they were aware of prior to the search. He was actually in violation of the agreement at that point (not sure the cops knew this or not, but I'm sure if they read hard enough they would see it). They did find 49 bricks of heroin in this particular vehicle by the way, so the fact that this made it to the Supreme Court (only to be remanded) is kind of comical. I'm asking in all honesty because obviously the Daily Beast is taking it a bit far in their conclusions (unsurprisingly).

This case - apparently the 2 sided with saying yes, there is privacy.  The rest appears to be just sidebar type discussion of their thoughts/feelings.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It would not require an amendment to change it so that aliens here illegally would not be afforded the right of citizenship, since the law is ambiguous enough and no court has actually ruled on it. Which was my point.

If that were true, there is no way they would be trying to put together an amendment - a law would be passed. 

[cannon_fodder]

From the Congressional Research Service paper that I previously linked. It may be a so called "talking point", but it has legitimately been discussed in law circles.

It is discussed in legal circles, but it is a minority view simply because the existing case law address all the questions raised on the 14th Amendment.  Illegal immigration has not been specifically addressed, but it doesn't present new questions.  Is the person born in and subject to the laws of the United States?  If the answer is yes, the 14th Amendment applies. I am not aware of a situation in which Congress can pass a law that says "except these people" in regards to a Constitutional Right.

Again, I asked if the police had probable cause, not whether this case was adjudicated correctly.

I really respect you and am in awe of your knowledge, however in both instances you rebutted a point I didn't make. I probably should have been clearer.

It's entirely possible I read your comments too quickly, I'm almost always responding on the fly (which leads to my long winded responses)

[swake]

So Trump disclosed the payment to Stormy Daniels in his required financial disclosure to The Office of Government Ethics today. Since the payment was not included in last years form as required, the the acting director of the office has referred Trump's failure to disclose to the AG's office for possible criminal action.  

[swake]

So Trump disclosed the payment to Stormy Daniels in his required financial disclosure to The Office of Government Ethics today. Since the payment was not included in last years form as required, the the acting director of the office has referred Trump's failure to disclose to the AG's office for possible criminal action.  

This might just be why Trump's attorney's in 2017 didn't want him to have to certify that the filing was true. He finally did so, which looks to have him cooked right now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-19/trump-attorney-didnt-want-him-to-sign-financial-disclosure

[BKDotCom]

good read

Crossfire Hurricane
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

good read

Crossfire Hurricane
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html

Excellent.


After seeing the end game of previous events of graft, corruption, and treason, after the fact...it becomes easy to "see" how much is bubbling beneath the surface by how much does manage to squeak out.  It is taking some time, but my guess is the Mueller has such a massive pile of stuff on various people that even the tea party Republicans will not be able to squelch it, as they have been doing for so long.  For the sake of the country, I hope so, anyway!

[Breadburner]

Excellent.


After seeing the end game of previous events of graft, corruption, and treason, after the fact...it becomes easy to "see" how much is bubbling beneath the surface by how much does manage to squeak out.  It is taking some time, but my guess is the Mueller has such a massive pile of stuff on various people that even the tea party Republicans will not be able to squelch it, as they have been doing for so long.  For the sake of the country, I hope so, anyway!

This dribble is laughable....I still smell a someone that has had their head up a bulls azz...You showered yet...

[heironymouspasparagus]

This dribble is laughable....I still smell a someone that has had their head up a bulls azz...You showered yet...

Just because you only understand every 4th or 5th word does not define "dribble".   But keep trying...you know what they say about a million chimpanzees with typewriters and unlimited time - eventually will write something worth reading!  We're all pulling for you!!   (The way it's going, I may have to start 'ghost-writing' for you just to give you a boost!!)



And just how bad does it have to be for Rex Tillerson, of all people, to start preaching morality...?   Answer;  This bad.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rex-tillerson-warns-apos-integrity-202733140.html

[swake]

This dribble is laughable....I still smell a someone that has had their head up a bulls azz...You showered yet...

If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society among our leaders in both public and private sector ... then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.

If our leaders seek to conceal the truth or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom,

Truth is the central tenet of a free society.

It is truth that says to our adversaries, 'We say what we mean, and we mean what we say."

- Former Sec of State Rex Tillerson speaking today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-aide-rex-tillerson-says-alternative-realities-are-a-threat-to-democracy/2018/05/16/4d0353f0-594b-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?utm_term=.865def531608

[BKDotCom]

- Former Sec of State Rex Tillerson speaking today

Doesn't he just have an ax to grind?
- Trump supporter

[Ed W]

- Former Sec of State Rex Tillerson speaking today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-aide-rex-tillerson-says-alternative-realities-are-a-threat-to-democracy/2018/05/16/4d0353f0-594b-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?utm_term=.865def531608

I liked this:

"When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth — even on what may seem the most trivial of matters — we go wobbly on America," Tillerson said.

When a significant percentage of our population dismisses facts as fake news, we are truly in trouble. When they see opinion as the equal of known facts, we fail as a country. Wishful thinking is no substitute for the truth, no matter how many times those wishes are repeated. Policy cannot be based on false information, imaginary data, or outright lies.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Doesn't he just have an ax to grind?
- Trump supporter

Lol...yeah, he might!   Certainly not a change in his morals, ethics, or integrity!