133

A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation ...


64

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 ...


45

Reading some background on Stefan Molyneux (Wikipedia) would indicate that he is a (Canadian) right-wing provocateur (Merriam-Webster) and there is no legal logic to his claim that anyone involved with the migrant caravan - either as a refugee or a person giving aid - is committing an act of treason. Provocateurs - on the political left or right - seek to ...


42

The long title of the 1906 act that established the FDA is "To prohibit the movement in interstate commerce of adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, and for other purposes." The reader may note the phrase "interstate commerce", which is a power granted Congress to regulate in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.


35

At time of answering, the question is: What's the most crucial issue when deciding Senator Cruz's citizenship? The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1, states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States[.] Cruz did not go through a naturalization process. ...


34

In English law during the late Medieval and early modern period (from 1321 to 1798), it was possible for Parliament to pass a "Bill Of Attainder". This declared a person guilty of a crime, often treason, by legislative act, without any trial or other legal process. See the Wikipedia article for more detail. Often a Bill of Attainder not only decreed that a ...


23

Some of the documents are here. As document 61 of the trial, the government motion for bench trial, argues, There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for criminal contempt charges resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less. Arpaio responds in document 62 that Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional ...


22

Congress can't override substantive rules of constitutional law Marbury v. Madison is a binding interpretation of what the U.S. Constitution permits or denies, and in substance, this law seeks to change that interpretation of the scope of the judicial power, so that interpretation may not be overruled except via a Constitutional amendment. Neither the ...


20

Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier). Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an ...


16

Generally not. Federal court uses a principle known as the enrolled bill rule -- in deference to the coequal status of the three branches of government, the "enrolled bill" (the thing printed on fancy paper that actually went to the President for signature) is irrebuttable evidence that the law was properly passed. The courts cannot deal with inquiries into ...


16

Rather than focus on the particular Executive Order, I will consider the general grounds on which an XO may be unlawful. Federal jurisdiction First, it must deal with matters that are properly within the power of the Federal government. An XO that deals with matters that properly belong to individual states would be unlawful. This applies to all lawmaking ...


15

The Fifth Amendment always protects someone from being forced to testify against themselves if it would implicate them in a crime (see, among others, Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17). Any person can assert the privilege, regardless of their role in the trial, with the possible exception of the plaintiff (who is the one person who wanted to go to court). Like ...


14

Since you asked, and it's a perfectly legitimate question, here's why it doesn't violate the Fifth Amendment (from Garner v. US): The Fifth Amendment doesn't say "you can't be made to say anything that hurts you." It says "no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The only time Fifth Amendment protection applies ...


13

You have a couple major misconceptions about US law. First, crimes against the person are generally punished at the state level. States are not restricted to any sort of enumerated powers, and can pass any law they want to promote the general welfare unless there's a reason they can't. This is called the "general police power," and it lets them make ...


12

The Twelfth Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States." Thus, to serve as vice president, an individual must: Be a natural-born U.S. citizen; Be at least 35 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States https://en....


12

Overview Generally speaking the Titles of Nobility clauses in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution, were aimed at barring hereditary grants of special privileges which is what it means by "Titles of Nobility". In particular, it was mostly aimed at preventing a monarchy from arising in the U.S. This said, there is extremely little case law ...


12

[C]an this decision really be used as legal precedent for birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants? Yes. If the case did not depend on the fact that they were lawfully resident in the US, then it would apply to those who are not lawfully present in the US. For the case to apply to some people but not others, there must be a ...


11

Yes, of course slavery is illegal. "Involuntary servitude" imposed upon someone through due process of law is not slavery. This is analogous to a death sentence for a capital crime, which, because it is imposed by due process of law, is not murder. Similarly, the judicial imposition of a fine, or the forfeiture of other property, is not theft. Now, ...


11

There are several possible ways to get there, but the answer is "there is no such position." Acting President vs. President Under the Constitution: In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the ...


11

25th Amendment: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and ...


11

According to Baldwin v. New York (1970), "the federal right to jury trial attaches where an offense is punishable by as much as six months' imprisonment" (1). That, is a crime is considered petty unless the maximum punishment exceeds six months' imprisonment. Moreover, Arpaio is being charged with criminal contempt. According to 42 U.S. Code § 1995, "the ...


10

Congress could start by repealing the The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Afterwards Congress could draft a new law that gives prisoners, sentenced to death, a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Currently, the Supreme Court chooses which cases it reviews, this law would force the Supreme Court to review each death penalty case. ...


10

No, it means the following are eligible: Natural born citizens Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the constitution The second part was to allow people that were citizens of the US in 1788 (but were obviously not "natural born citizens", since the US didn't exist when they were born) to be eligible for the Presidency. Check out ...


10

This is answered here. According to Wikipedia, birthright citizenship was extended to children with citizen mothers and noncitizen fathers in 1934; the text of that law seems to be found here. The 1961 Supreme Court ruling that Salon is referring to seems to be this one, but they are interpreting the law as it stood in 1906, not 1961. Petitioner, whose ...


10

The show ignored the existing legal framework. Almost all U.S. police officers are employed by state and local governments and do not report directly to the President, even in an emergency. A small number of law enforcement officers are federal employees with a direct line of command to the President (e.g. the Secret Service and the security guards in the ...


10

The Twenty-fifth Amendment states: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Thus, in the absence of a majority the candidate would be denied the office.


10

I will only address this part of the question: Who would be able to authoritatively decide the constitutionality of such a question, with all Supreme Court justices having clear conflict of interest on the matter? The Supreme Court could still hear such a case, as the justices make their own decisions about when to recuse themselves. In particular, they ...


9

The United States could sign a treaty with Canada under which it undertook to eradicate the death penalty throughout the nation. This would authorise Congress to pass an Act abolishing state-level death penalties under the foreign affairs power. This is the trick they used to regulate birds despite a lack of an avian head of power in the Constitution. The ...


9

TL;DR: It's controversial, but it looks like it also protects the rights for the individual. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. While the exact explanation is a matter of opinion, it reads like it's a subject, a reason and a right to the subject....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible