Swordsmyth
Member

You are 100% wrong and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You can uninvite anyone you invite, it's not an invitation if you can't, it's some kind of marriage type covenant. They don't belong here, and they were brought in treasonoulsy, they all get kicked out.

Subversive garbage. You can change your mind and disinvite a guest at any time. And the "invitation" was illegal, Biden violated the laws.

But you have no right to invite anyone you wish into my country or to harbor them from deportation.

We can throw them out at any time, and don't even try to bring modern leftist squatters' right garbage into this.

It is an invasion, and all invasions may require a military response if severe enough. The military/civilian dichotomy is a legal nicety invented in the modern world, this invasion is no different than the Goths invading Gaul with their women and children. When the invaders were less bold and aggressive we could continue to play by the modern niceties, now they have become the reason we and they can't have nice things.

What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment. This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

I did not say if the standing ruling was good or bad. I am generally against the concept of no standing, though it does have a limited place in some circumstances. But the pardon was never actually challenged, so it only "stood" through lack of challenge.

That's false. Hearings are not a challenge, they are politicians bloviating. And cases dismissed on standing grounds are not rulings upholding the pardon as legal, all that was decided was that individual citizens could not challenge the pardon. A true challenge would have been an attempt to prosecute Nixon that was ruled against on the basis that the pardon was valid, preferably a SCOTUS decision.

Trump is perfectly Constitutionally correct. Invaders and tourists are not "Subject to our jurisdiction" they are subjects of their home countries.

Something cannot have stood unless it was challenged and passed the challenge. Nobody ever tried to prosecute Nixon, as much because they had no real case as for any other reason. The only precedential case acknowledged the validity of the argument that pardons for unspecified things are illegal, it just found a way not to have to rule on that aspect. Biden declared the ERA to be part of the Constitution, it won't suddenly become part of the Constitution because everyone ignores it as absurd.

Nonsense, the invasion is far worse than Russia's invasion of Ukraine and has been going on much longer, it has also caused more deaths.

In case someone tells you Burdick v. United States set a precedent for pardons of unknown and unspecified crimes: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/ Looks like they didn’t rule on the unknown crimes part: It is hence contended by Burdick that the pardon is illegal for the absence of specification, not reciting the offenses upon which it is intended to operate — worthless therefore as immunity. To support the contention, cases are cited. It is asserted besides that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States because it was issued before accusation or conviction or admission of an offense. This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,” and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an “offense against the United States” be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals. We do not dwell further on the attack. We prefer to place the case on the ground we have stated.

Never tested and illegal.

In case someone tells you Burdick v. United States set a precedent for pardons of unknown and unspecified crimes: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/ Looks like they didn’t rule on the unknown crimes part: It is hence contended by Burdick that the pardon is illegal for the absence of specification, not reciting the offenses upon which it is intended to operate — worthless therefore as immunity. To support the contention, cases are cited. It is asserted besides that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States because it was issued before accusation or conviction or admission of an offense. This, it is insisted, is precluded by the constitutional provision which gives power only “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,” and it is argued, in effect, that not in the imagination or purpose of executive magistracy can an “offense against the United States” be established, but only by the confession of the offending individual or the judgment of the judicial tribunals. We do not dwell further on the attack. We prefer to place the case on the ground we have stated.

Angela McArdle Angela4LNCChair Pres. Trump's staff just confirmed to me Ross's pardon will be issued late tonight or tomorrow morning. https://x.com/angela4LNCChair/status/1881533967209578781 1881533967209578781

Hopefully he'll get about 1% of the vote. He is and always has been a fraud and a parasite.

These pardons will not hold up. You cannot be pardoned of unspecified things, the person issuing the pardon doesn't even know what he's pardoning.

Updated White House website list of all executive actions signed today. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

THE ALSO GOOD: *making the border situation an "emergency" militarizing the border declaring an energy "emergency" enacting tariffs designating the cartels as "terrorists"