1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Recent SCOTUS hearing on 14th amendment.

    From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 17 08:22:04 2025
    Following the amusing SCOTUS hearing on whether the Federal judge was
    correct to issue a nationwide block on Trumps EO redefining the 14th
    amendment, an interesting scenario was highlighted whereby a baby could
    be born in the US and (thanks to the EO) not be a citizen. However
    because it's parents may not be able to claim their citizenship where
    they fled if they are refugees, then the baby is effectively stateless.

    There was an additional layer of complexity around the suggestion that if
    there were not a nationwide ban, then you could have a federal court in
    one state rule differently to another state and thus drag in the equal protection clauses of the constitution. At this point I went a bit MEGO - especially with all the talk of buckets.

    However if I understood correctly, one of the Supremes had picked up that
    if there was not a nationwide ban, then children born in one state would
    have different rights to those born in another in contravention of
    another article ????

    It amused me that despite a pinky promise not to discuss the merits of
    the EO itself (presumably they have rights to the sequel) it kept on
    popping up.

    I still maintain that P.J.O'Rourkes description of a SCOTUS hearing was
    all I ever needed to know (and then some). Which says a lot :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 2 21:17:56 2025
    Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote in news:1009q9k$bqfu$[email protected]:

    Following the amusing SCOTUS hearing on whether the Federal judge was
    correct to issue a nationwide block on Trumps EO redefining the 14th amendment, an interesting scenario was highlighted whereby a baby
    could be born in the US and (thanks to the EO) not be a citizen.
    However because it's parents may not be able to claim their
    citizenship where they fled if they are refugees, then the baby is effectively stateless.

    There was an additional layer of complexity around the suggestion that
    if there were not a nationwide ban, then you could have a federal
    court in one state rule differently to another state and thus drag in
    the equal protection clauses of the constitution. At this point I went
    a bit MEGO - especially with all the talk of buckets.

    However if I understood correctly, one of the Supremes had picked up
    that if there was not a nationwide ban, then children born in one
    state would have different rights to those born in another in
    contravention of another article ????

    It's not unprecedented. When the Tax Court rules on an issue, for
    example, appeals courts in one district may make different rulings on the
    same facts, until the Supreme Court decides an issue.

    It amused me that despite a pinky promise not to discuss the merits of
    the EO itself (presumably they have rights to the sequel) it kept on
    popping up.

    I still maintain that P.J.O'Rourkes description of a SCOTUS hearing
    was all I ever needed to know (and then some). Which says a lot :)





    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)