I don’t have a dog in this fight and don’t really hold the NYT as a sacred cow or anything. But I do know that I’ve heard many conservative pundits curse their name, as well as Trump.
You can hardly hold any publication to what it published in the 20-30s. I am sure they weren’t alone in that regard. Of course criticism what what they publish today is important.
Not enough, evidently. Obviously my confusion on where the NYT lies politics-wise added to my confusion.
As you’d expect.
The NYT is targeted at liberals, and presents itself as mostly liberal. But it’s actually working for the Trumpists.
I don’t have the magnitude of feeling some have for NYT’s take on things, but as a whole it’s a company and being a company carries political baggage that pushes towards a pro-establishment view. That means it will take the position of pro-war, pro-agency, pro-supply-side-economics, etc. that are still the views of the political right. It’s also why they would spend a lot of time writing fluffy pieces about the private lives of white nationalists but not reach that olive branch to the political left.
So the hate has root in some very real issues, but American politics are so absolutely entrenched in the right wing that it doesn’t seem that way - especially with politics being treated as a sport rather than something that governs our lives because it makes more money that way.
I don’t get how they would actually carve out the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” portion of the amendment… like how would they specifically phrase an order that would actually target the population they’re after? Especially because if these people are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” wouldn’t they also not be illegal!? By definition wouldn’t it mean that they’re not subject to US law!? Am I crazy?
This is all a pack of bullshit that they are using to get (racist) people out to vote. It’s raw, jingoistic garbage. The GOP have nothing to offer most Americans, but they know how to wag the fucking dog.
Pretend I’m dumb. Or as the kids over on Reddit say: ELI5
What makes their demand 100% bullshit? Keep it simple, as IANAL and reading this stuff makes my head hurt. Like that damn comma in the 2nd amendment.
I don’t know.
Is anybody with me on this?
Follow this back and there are no citizens.
Part of the liberal social order is the notion that the law is sovereign.
In theory, we don’t imprison criminals because they are the wrong sort of people. In theory, we imprison persons who have been proven to have committed certain enumerated crimes. And those persons theoretically belong to every strata of society,
Ideally, then, the law is structured to protect the innocent, It’s structured to ensure that things are proven. It’s structured to thwart arbitrary whims.
Now, suppose that a person existed outside the reach of law. An outlaw. An “illegal”
fascists might imagine that sort of person as owing no allegiance to the law, and likely to commit crimes against the moral order-- and consequently forfeiting the protections afforded by the rule of law. They might imagine that the police are best utilized in ensuring that these sorts of people are locked up, or dead, before they can act against the rest of society-- and the law should not delay this inevitable outcome.
I feel like I should be devouring the works of Giorgio Agamben. Alas, my local library doesn’t stock his books.
I can (sadly) also imagine them taking this approach toward the 1st.
I’ll bet you a doughnut they wouldn’t take that approach toward the 2nd, though.
Suddenly the “Originalists” get all hip and newfangled when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Your comment is the most accurate take. The NYT is deferential to authority, power, and wealth in all their forms, even when a news story takes a contrary position or questions a practise. Its language and priorities reflect that approach.
Basically: they’re trying to redefine a couple of words to mean what they desperately want them to mean.
The original intent of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction was to clarify that the amendment was for people on American soil who weren’t being taxed or controlled by a foreign government, as well as Native Americans who are more-or-less independent. America at that time really liked immigrants and was eager to have as many new citizens as possible.
These days, hating the very idea of immigrants is pretty much a Republican party plank. They want Congress to redefine that phrase to mean that only the children of social-security-card-holding US citizens would automatically be citizens when they’re born.
So besides the BS about changing the meaning of the phrase (which the Supreme Court has firmly established), the 14th Amendment literally states, flat out, that the President is not allowed to change or get rid of birthright citizenship — only Congress can alter the definition of a citizen. So no, Trump has zero ability to get rid of this with a signature.
It says “no state” can fuck with citizenship; does the Federal government count as a state?
Anyone want to try translating section 2 into human?
Disenfranchised felons don’t count, unless they’re traitors? That seems backwards.
—
Ultimately, the text isn’t that important. It all comes down to whatever the court says.
Section 5 says that only Congress can alter the amendment.
I’ll take a stab at it.
States get representatives according to the number of people in each state, excluding untaxed Indians. (Note to States - tax your Indians, folks!).
If anyone tries to deny the right to vote for certain positions to male citizens of the United States over 21 for any reason other than participation in rebellion or other crime, the number of people in the state for the purposes of calculating representatives is reduced in proportion to the proportion of male citizens, etc. who had their right to vote removed for reasons other than rebellion or other crime vs the number of male citizens over 21 in total.
So both disenfranchised felons and traitors don’t count.
Amusing (?) anecdote: I’m seeing Finnish idiots on the FB saying that we need to get rid of this birthright citizenship thing, too, because Finland is a small country and we’ll be “ethnically overwhelmed” or something. Nevermind that we don’t have birthright citizenship. Goes on to show how little these “concerned patriot” types actually know about our laws and the workings of the Finnish society, and how much they absorb their alternate facts directly from American far-right wingnutsphere.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 5 says Congress can pass legislation to enforce the amendment. It doesn’t say only Congress can do so.
It says nothing at all about who can amend the amendment.
Edit to say - it doesn’t need to of course, that’s already covered elsewhere.
You can read it as “sole authority to enforce = sole authority to alter”, but a motivated court could find room for a Presidential decree.
There’s also the issue of the fascist-friendly Congress…
Amending amendments has never been the power of Presidential decree. Section 5 establishes that Congress has the power to enforce the amendment. A court could establish that it doesn’t call out the President by name, and thus he can do whatever he wants like a king, but it’s usually established that if the Constitution calls out Congress as the one with the power to do something, it means that the other branches are left out.
