Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • (MORE: in the originalist and textualist methodology, words are measurements, an

    (MORE: in the originalist and textualist methodology, words are measurements, and those measurements are produced in the context of time and space. This creates transactional law that requires congressional or legislative clarification by deliberate choice in order to alter the…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 18:57:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887938763671941510

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887937859627237859

  • Again, the court has thankfully been returned to the hands of originalists and t

    Again, the court has thankfully been returned to the hands of originalists and textualists and so considers all relevant context in the adjudication – so ‘word games’ are a leftist tactic, and not considered meaningful in this discourse or the court’s.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 18:55:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887938319105077613

    Reply addressees: @AccurateCaption

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887937859627237859

  • Q:”If Congress passes legislation … who is to say the legislation is not “appr

    –Q:”If Congress passes legislation … who is to say the legislation is not “appropriate”–

    Good Question.
    Unlike europe where the parliament is sovereign (rules) over the people, in the USA, the people are sovereign, not the government, and the constitution enumerates the terms by which the people grant the government responsibility for administration of the environment in which the people live.
    Consequently, the Constitution limits what is ‘appropriate’ for congress to legislate.
    The limit is the natural law that the founders relied upon as stated in Blackstone. And the natural law is best disambiguated by ‘the natural law of cooperation under universal defense of sovereignty of the individual in his demonstrated interests, and the resulting demand for reciprocity in display word and deed.’
    As such does the legislation passed by congress violate the natural law of cooperation, which in the abstract means ‘does it impose costs upon the demonstrated interests of the population without just compensation for that imposition’?
    And costs here mean the entire spectrum of demonstrated interests whether personal, kin, private, semi-private, common informal, common formal, or common material.
    As such the congress, because of the laxity of the court during the marxist-trotskyist attempt to undermine the constitution, commonality and concurrency, and natural law, sought by lawfare and by positive law, to create sovereignty for the legislature against the people, during the 50s thru 70s.
    This court (thanks largely to the Federalist Society’s work since 1980) seeks to restore the constitution and the sovereignty of the states and the people. And this president seeks to do the same. both of which return the government to the service of the union of states rather than to some desire for world government – a world government we sought to end world wars, but which was captured by the financial, bureaucratic and academic and media sectors to create world government and subvert national sovereignty to some globalist ideology.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @AccurateCaption


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 18:39:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887934293315567618

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887927683494850920

  • Yes, though one of the holes in the constitution is the inability of the court t

    Yes, though one of the holes in the constitution is the inability of the court to ASSIGN a decision to the legislature, which must then rule upon it within some period of time, else the court must or may rule upon it.
    The other hole of course, is that there is no requirement that legislation pass the court for its legality prior to assent. The court instead must wait for a dispute to arise among those with standing before illegal (unconstitutional) legislation is reversed. And there is no punishment for the advancement of illegal legislation.

    Reply addressees: @AccurateCaption


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 18:19:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887929108098859008

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887926530648719819

  • WILL TRUMP’S CLARIFICATION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COUR

    WILL TRUMP’S CLARIFICATION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COURT?

    the Supreme Court’s ruling would depend on several legal arguments, interpretations of the 14th Amendment, and the composition of the Court at the time of the ruling.

    Arguments Favoring Trump’s…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 17:52:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887922510286700546

  • WILL TRUMP’S CLARIFICATION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COUR

    WILL TRUMP’S CLARIFICATION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COURT?

    the Supreme Court’s ruling would depend on several legal arguments, interpretations of the 14th Amendment, and the composition of the Court at the time of the ruling.

    Arguments Favoring Trump’s Position

    Originalist Interpretation of the 14th Amendment
    – The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states:
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
    – The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has historically been interpreted broadly to include nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, except diplomats and invading armies.
    – Trump’s argument hinges on a narrower interpretation—that “subject to the jurisdiction” means full allegiance to the U.S., which could exclude illegal immigrants and non-permanent residents.

    Historical Precedents and Legislative Intent
    – The Framers of the 14th Amendment (1868) debated whether birthright citizenship should extend beyond freed slaves to include Native Americans and foreigners.
    – Some legal scholars argue that the intent was not to automatically grant citizenship to children of non-citizens.
    – The Supreme Court has never ruled explicitly on whether illegal immigrants’ children qualify for birthright citizenship.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) – Not a Perfect Precedent
    This case ruled that a child born in the U.S. to legal Chinese immigrants was a citizen.
    It did not explicitly address children of illegal immigrants, leaving an open legal question.
    Conservatives could argue that the ruling was based on a different immigration context—before modern border laws and mass migration.

    The Role of Congress in Immigration
    The Plenary Power Doctrine states that Congress has wide latitude over immigration policy.
    Some legal conservatives argue that Congress—not the courts—should decide birthright citizenship laws, meaning an executive order could trigger legislative action.

    Composition of the Supreme Court
    If the Court leans conservative (6-3), they might be open to revisiting Wong Kim Ark or upholding a redefinition of the jurisdiction clause.
    Justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch may be sympathetic to an originalist reading that limits birthright citizenship.

    Arguments Against Trump’s Position

    Wong Kim Ark Precedent & Stare Decisis
    The Court has long recognized birthright citizenship as settled law.
    Overturning it would require a radical reinterpretation of jurisdiction.

    Textual Reading of the 14th Amendment
    The broad language suggests inclusion rather than exclusion.
    The Framers did not explicitly exclude children of foreigners.

    Practical and Political Fallout
    Ending birthright citizenship could disrupt millions of legal cases.
    It might lead to stateless children, violating international norms.

    Possible Supreme Court Ruling Outcomes

    Trump Wins (5-4 or 6-3 Ruling)
    The Court limits birthright citizenship by redefining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
    Children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors lose automatic citizenship.
    Wong Kim Ark remains precedent for legal immigrants only.

    Trump Loses (6-3 or 7-2 Ruling)
    The Court reaffirms birthright citizenship under Wong Kim Ark.
    They reject the executive order as an overreach requiring constitutional amendment.

    Partial Victory (Narrow Ruling)
    The Court sidesteps broad rulings and focuses on Congressional authority over the matter.
    They rule that Congress—not an executive order—must clarify the law.

    Prediction: 50/50 Odds

    If the case is heard by this current Court, Trump has a real chance of winning—but it depends on whether conservative justices view Wong Kim Ark as binding precedent.

    A textualist like Barrett might hesitate to overturn settled law.
    If the ruling leans against Trump, expect it to be based on stare decisis (respect for precedent) rather than constitutional clarity.

    If the case were postponed until after a more conservative Court (due to retirements or new appointments), Trump’s odds increase significantly.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-07 17:52:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887922509808590848

  • NEW CONFERENCE VIDEO! The Law: A System of Measurement – Curt Doolittle

    NEW CONFERENCE VIDEO!
    The Law: A System of Measurement – Curt Doolittle https://youtu.be/jMmDBEkX1gU?si=KsJrgKEWTptXis-9


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-06 22:48:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887634498889941237

  • NEW CONFERENCE VIDEO! The Law: A System of Measurement – Curt Doolittle

    NEW CONFERENCE VIDEO!
    The Law: A System of Measurement – Curt Doolittle https://t.co/R5cZabhVj4


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-06 22:48:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887634498776600576

  • our treaty for the transfer allows us to do so. Read it

    our treaty for the transfer allows us to do so. Read it.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-02 22:52:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886185854911263018

    Reply addressees: @Mattylongruns @sentdefender

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886139772298571845

  • I should add that our work at NLI includes the criminalisation of these means of

    I should add that our work at NLI includes the criminalisation of these means of criminality. https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1885583013742075957