The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
65

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

There will be a gap in succession, but only briefly. Speaker Paul Ryan's term extends past the election through the end of the 115th Congress, to 11:59:59 p.m. on January 2, 2018. From there, the speakership is vacant until the 116th House of Representatives elects a successor. Traditionally, the House convenes at noon on January 3 of the year after an ...


7

Since the US Federal government didn't try to pass any such law (nor would it have been politically possible in the period shortly before the US Civil War), there is no way to know with assurance how such a hypothetical law would have been addressed by the Supreme Court of the day, nor by the various states. Congress legally could have prohibited the ...


7

Your interpretation is correct. The constitution says that judges stay in office "until and unless they are impeached." That means that congress cannot impose a time limit on any judge's term of office. If it did so, it would be contrary to the constitution. The only grounds for removal are those to do with misbehavior. Therefore, judges have life ...


6

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 ...


6

Yes. In 1872 President Grant was stopped for speeding (on horseback, mind you). The officer, observing that he had stopped the President of the United States, initially let him go with nothing but a verbal warning. Later the same day, the same officer stopped Grant again speeding in the same place. The officer then informed Grant that he would have to be ...


6

Attainder refers to a metaphorical "stain" (taint, related to 'tint'). In English law, a person could lose their right to pass property to their heirs (especially as punishment for treason). "Corruption of blood" refers to the fact that not only can the children not inherit from the "tainted" person, then cannot inherit from other relatives through the ...


6

When an individual or an organization (such as a business or a local or state government) thinks that a governmental action is in violation of a constitutional limitation, s/he/it may file suit against the government (Federal, state, or local as the case may be). Such suits most often seek injunctions against continuation of the action, but sometimes damages,...


6

The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for ...


6

If you mean who decides what is good behavior, congress does. Congress would impeach a judge if he/she needed to be removed. With respect to federal judges, under Article I of the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach, and the Senate the power to hold a trial to determine whether removal is appropriate. The ...


5

The Militia Act of 1792 was written less than a year after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It provided an almost immediate, complete definition of the militia by contemporary understanding of the terms used in the Constitution, with the debates on the wording of the Bill of Rights still ringing in the ears of the people. Section I. [...]That each ...


5

According to 50 USC § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense] "enemy of the United States" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States. This is not limited to nations, but it is limited to those activly engaged in the use of force against the US.


5

Basically, A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations because they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” But according to the US ...


5

If you're assuming that the child is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child is a citizen of the United States, immediately upon birth. No waiting, no paperwork, no red tape.


5

Because an "Order, Resolution, or Vote" is not the same as a Bill, and does not become a law. Thus the procedure for presentation, leading to signing, pocket acceptance, veto, or pocket veto, does not apply to Orders, Resolutions, or Votes. Therefore it is repeated to indicate that it applies to those legislative acts also. A "Vote", in the sense used here ...


5

There are a number of issues here. The question mentions: Taxes, which I presume must be authorized and regulated by the US Constitution, but I don't know the details Not exactly. The states existed before the Federal government. They are not created by the Federal Constitution, nor authorized by it. A number of restrictions on state powers and actions ...


5

The U.S. law rule is that treaties and laws are co-equal and that one does not supersede the other. In the U.S., the rule is that the last passed law or treaty prevails, over earlier passed laws or treaties if they conflict. See, e.g., Julian G. Ku, "Treaties as laws: A Defense of the Last-in-Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes" 80 Indiana Law ...


4

There is arguably a legal right to non-citizen nationality either by statute or under customary international law, but the U.S. Constitution does not afford such a right and Article I, Section 8 grants Congress broad authority over the governance of such territories and over immigration and naturalization (i.e. to define citizenship beyond the minimum ...


4

If someone was charged with 15 counts of a crime but was only indicted on 2 counts, can the prosecutor introduce evidence at sentencing of charges that the person was not indicted on? In federal court, yes. This has been the case since Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) which held that evidence such as counts and conduct upon which the defendant ...


4

Yes. The president is bound by the Constitution. The president may be immune from prosecution or from civil suits while he holds the office, but that does not mean he is not obligated to abide by the Constitution. While he is in office, he is subject to sanction for misconduct by Congress, and when he leaves office, he is generally subject to prosecution ...


4

Presidential power of that type might arise from congressional authorization, where Congress authorizes action when POTUS deems that such-and-such is the case. An example is 8 USC 1182(f), which says Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the ...


4

No This particular attempt at jurisdiction stripping would fail as it attacks the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. However, providing it leaves original jurisdiction alone, Congress ...


3

See the authorities cited in this answer: What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment? A foreign diplomat (or a member of the family of a diplomat) is not subject to arrest for violations of US law, and so is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Nor does a diplomat pay US taxes, which is ...


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