dhork

It has succeeded at its primary goal, though: siphon government cash into the pockets of the Trump family, and their friends

I guess hindsight really is 2020

Normally, if a sitting Senator is unable to continue (due to Retirement, or due to God exercising His Ultimate Veto on the matter), the Governor appoints someone to fill the post until the next scheduled Federal election, where whoever is elected would serve out the remainder of that term.

But Kentucky is an exception, because they did something truly crazy and elected a Democrat as Governor, in a state that is otherwise solid red. The Legislature passed a law which states the Governor can't appoint anyone to fill the vacancy, and must call a special election instead, and overrode the Governor's inevitable veto.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article299796929.html

So, should McConnell depart for greener pastures with heavenly lettuce, I wonder if Beshear will string the election process along, and leave as much possible time with that Senate seat vacant, out of pure spite.

And that's only about 3,000 Bitcoin at its current price. They have lots more.

Mamdani may be a "city mayor", but NYC is larger, population wise, than many small countries. Paraguay has less population, and still gets its own World Cup soccer team....

The real truth is that nobody who can do anything about it cares....

It's gonna be Newsom vs. Donald Trump Jr

That oath doesn't mean anything unless the other country recognizes it means something.

Here's a link to a legal firm that claims that Canada just ignores that oath, and a Canadian who becomes an American citizen doesn't lose their Canadian citizenship. On the other hand, the Germans apparently care, and revoke your German citizenship once you get naturalized in the US, all because of the oat h

“Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way,” Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Hmm, let's look a the actual text of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The word "solely" doesn't appear there once. There is absolutely nothing there that states that being a citizen of another country disqualifies you, or your kids. (If it did, it would be impossible to be naturalized as a US citizen without first renouncing your original citizenship). It's obvious that this clause was meant to apply to diplomats and other people who get some forms of immunity from local prosecution.

What an asshat....

I'm interested in what is actually in the dissent. But I also work for a living, and I guess the dissent is over 90 pages? Who has time for that shit?

But based on news reports, the main thrust of the dissent is that the birthright citizenship clause was "always meant" for babies born here whose parents had no prior allegiance to other countries, like the children of newly emancipated slaves. But that's bullshit, because those former slaves didn't choose to come here, so assuming they have no allegiance to any other country after coming here is kind of insulting.

Also, all those "Dreamers" who were brought here as small children certainly feel an allegiance here, this country is all they have ever known. It doesn't matter where their parents came from.

Maybe I shouldn't read the whole dissent, it would just piss me off. All these conservatives who claim to be "textualists" start making shit up the minute the plain text doesn't support their preconceived ideas.