Tag Info

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and ...

Your assumption is incorrect -- the Bill of Rights proper does not apply to the states, and pre-14th Amendment only bound the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 US 243. States could do whatever they wanted, subject to federal legislation on the matters given to the federal government and subject to their own constitutions. After the Civil War, ...

So, as I understand the decision, it's a little more subtle than that. By default, states have sovereign immunity and can't be sued without their consent. Congress can remove ("abrogate") this immunity by law in some circumstances. They tried to do so for copyright infringement cases with the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990. However, in the ...

Can you break a law? Can you be held to account for that law you broke? If yes, then you're subject to the jurisdiction of those laws. Foreign invaders are not subject to our laws. Diplomats with Diplomatic Immunity are not subject to our laws. Indians on Indian land are not subject to our laws. As such you are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' if ...

The relevant passage from the opinion in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) is: We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against ...

The Board of Estimates still gave small boroughs like Staten Island more representatives per voter than large boroughs like Manhattan. Therefore it violated the one man, one vote principal which is evaluated with respect to all representatives having votes in a body, not just those that hold a majority. The analysis is to take all at large seats that don't ...

This question is framed such that it could include myriad different scenarios that could lead to a search of one's personal computer. You seem to gear the bulk of your inquiry toward when the government can search, but then move to when a corporate entity has the right to do so, which is a very different thing. These are different issues with different ...

According to current US law: and Relative to diplomats I'll offer my own opinion: Specifically, if a foreign diplomat can be expelled by the US government, that is an utilization of jurisdiction by the US government.

The law certainly may not constitutionally overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Constitution, or any applicable federal law, or the state constitution. And, while a particularly individual county clerk could not be fired for refusing to issue a same-sex couple a marriage licenses, it is not at all obvious that a county clerk's office itself, could refuse ...

The Supreme Court usually goes to great pains not to describe any particular practice as a "religion" or "not a religion" if it can at all manage to do so. To do so could be seen as a government endorsement or sanctioning of a religion, or a repudiation thereof, and thus a violation of the establishment clause! That's why phrases such as "closely held ...

Read the last quote that you just posted. "in the absence of" means "without". The phrases are trying to say that there are two ways to discriminate. willfully, knowingly aiming to exclude minorities, and blaming it on the computer. Suppose somebody programs Siri to listen for that particular accent/affectation common in the black or hispanic ...

Content-based restrictions on speech cannot be imposed by the government, because of the 1st Amendment. This includes speech deemed to be "hate" or "discriminatory". Examples: Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852. The university prohibited Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ...

A search warrant can be issued in Ca Family Court for a petioner in a domestic violence action to 'record unlawful communication'. I.E., a defendant making or attempting contact with a protected party by mail, phone, txt, email ect. in violation of a restraining order (RO) currently in force. Such warrants are granted by a judge upon a 'preponderance of the ...