Today in Supreme Court History: July 9, 1868

7/9/1868: The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified.

The Fourteenth Amendment

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 9, 2020): Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to try Native American because alleged crime occurred on what was still technically a reservation despite long history of broken promises and disruption of borders; case can only be tried in federal court under the Major Crimes Act (the decision is a good example of Gorsuch's casual writing style)

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 9, 2020): rejecting Trump's attempt to block grand jury subpoena on his accountants; Article II and Supremacy Clause not violated by state criminal process on a sitting President

Trump v. Mazars USA, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 9, 2020): Trump contested Congressional subpoenas into his financial affairs for purpose of determining money laundering and extent of foreign influence; no executive privilege asserted, but Congress had never subpoenaed Presidential records before and Court remanded for consideration of separation of powers concerns (Thomas in dissent holds that Congress can never subpoena private papers from anyone, let alone the President, except as part of an impeachment process)
NOTE: in a decision that came down yesterday, July 8, 2022, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subpoenas had to be responded to in part, see https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E7A013008E57B8FD8525887900595CE8/$file/21-5176-1954101.pdf)

[Brett Bellmore]

Essentially in McGirt, the Court ruled that if Congress wants so break a treaty, they can do the dirty work themselves. I think that was fair.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Didn't make McGirt look too good either. As the dissent pointed out, Oklahoma courts had convicted him of raping and sodomizing his wife's four-year-old granddaughter. His lawyer, a diligent researcher, invoked the moribund Major Crimes Act, an 1885 law from the Wild West era before Oklahoma was even its own territory, let alone a State, which tried to combat lawlessness by requiring serious crimes such as murder and rape to be tried in federal courts.

[John F. Carr]

Some justices (I want to say Thomas especially) have a habit of implying that the defendant should lose on a question of law because he is accused of doing something especially bad.

[David Nieporent]

Sounds more Alitoish.

[Sarcastr0]

Thomas does love to exhaustively go through the bloody details.

[Frank Drackman]

It's a "Black Thang" (Like Big "Black Thangs")
You wouldn't understand
Frank "Black where it Counts"

[Mr. Bumble]

With regard to the third item:

Maybe it's past time for Congress to stop these endless hearings and do the job they were supposed to do. A good start would be passing a budget (does anyone remember the last time that was done?) instead of endless continuing resolutions and omnibus spending packages.

[Longtobefree]

This is from an official senate source, and is therefore suspect:
Between 1975, when the current budget process took effect, and 1998 Congress never failed to pass a budget. Since then, Congress has failed to pass a budget in 7 of the last 15 fiscal years.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't even think it's suspect - it's numbers. You're virtue signaling how zealous your anti-government bona fides are.

[Longtobefree]

Or see Mr. Bumble below - - - - - -

[Sarcastr0]

This only goes to 2013 does not mean the numbers are suspect, lol.

[Frank Drackman]

not, Not, NOT, Advocating that every single member of House/Senate be struck down by Hey-Zeus's Terrible Swift Sword (Or that Japanese Assassin, who should claim he was just following "Sleepy/Restoring "Woe" to the Nation/ and helping a 10 yr old girl who was trying to terminate her "Presidency") you remember Sleepy's advice "Get a Shotgun!!! Fire 2 shots out the Window!!!(the Abe Assassin fired 2 shots)
Seriously, 98.6% of Representatives are Crooks/Sex Criminals/Other Criminals/
and the other 1.4% I'm not to sure about (Rand(y) Paul is probably the best one and that's saying something (not good)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems out of date. Those numbers only take us to 2013. I don't think there have been any since then either.

[David Nieporent]

Fun fact: nothing in the constitution requires a formal budget. It might be a good idea — I mean, I think it is — but it is not "the job they were supposed to do." Passing taxing and appropriations bills, yes. But a budget, no.

[DaivdBehar]

Excellent point David. I did not know that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well I stand corrected. I conflated the term "budget" with the various spending bills that would normally be passed.

If memory serves me correct the President would present Congress with a proposed budget for the next fiscal year. Congress would then draw up various appropriation to fund the different branches of the government. I think this was usually 12 0r 13 different spending bills. After they passed in Congress they would be sent to the President for his signature or veto. This would allow for some spending to proceed an other spending to be negotiated between Congress and the Executive.

Now it is an all or nothing, last minute omnibus bill with threats of a government shutdown.

Not the way it should work.

[Sarcastr0]

The committees still draft the separate approps bills. Guess which party is holding the budget bills up?

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm,, so, (rending my Scrubs here) so What The Fuck is this "FY 2022 Congressional Budget Submission" dammit at an airport and I'm 60 and boarding (always get on last, Jet ain't goin' anywhere without me(OK, they will)
Sure looks like the Congress is involved in the Budget Process (Was that 40 Billion $$ for Yuke-Raine just fucking miracled??"

Frank "Impeach them all, let Jay-Hovah sort them out" (Figuratively!!!!)

[DaivdBehar]

NOTE: in a decision that came down yesterday, July 8, 2022, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subpoenas had to be responded to in part, see https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E7A013008E57B8FD8525887900595CE8/$file/21-5176-1954101.pdf)

Swamp doing lawfare on a dissident President.

[DaivdBehar]

3 Star General cancelled for sarcasm. Jill Biden said women's rights wre taken away. He replied glad she knew ehat a woman was. That's it. Cancelled.

[Mr. Bumble]

Comment below posted in error.

[Mr. Bumble]

Piss off, wanker.

[Cal Cetín]

No worries about Oklahoma - just require that the tribal government accept unlimited migration into its territory and award tribal citizenship to (at minimum) everyone born there. Then the non-tribal majority can elect a tribal council which dissolves itself and hands the territory over to Oklahoma.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do hope that on April 14th, next year, your headline will read, "150's anniversary of the Supreme court spiking the 14th amendment."

[Mr. Bumble]

Just how would they do that?

[Brett Bellmore]

What, select the headline? 😉

They did it in the Slaughterhouse cases by adopting such a restrictive interpretation of the P&I clause that it ceased to have any real world application. Thus rendering the 14th amendment effectively moot.

This led to the Court in the 20th century inventing 'substantive due process' so that the due process clause could do the work the P&I clause had been intended to do. Rather than just overruling Slaughterhouse, which would have been the right thing to do, but would have given the Court less flexibility about which rights to incorporate.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, what case is the vehicle and which Justices would do the deed?

[Brett Bellmore]

I really don't understand your point: These posts commemorate Supreme court related (Very loosely defined!) events on a given date. I'm merely suggesting that, next April 14th, he mention that it's the 150th anniversary of the Supreme court spiking the 14th amendment. I'm not suggesting the Court do anything about that, though it would be welcome.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got it. Thanks.

[Kazinski]

"Show me the law, and I will show you the case"
-Lavrentiy Beria

Lets be honest, conservatives never believed Roe was legitimate constitutional law. And despite being a pro-choice libertarian, I have to agree constitutionaly. But I'm sure the liberals if they get 5 or 6 votes are going to reverse everything they can get the votes for.

Stare Decides was so important a principle to protect Roe, now that Roe is dead its served its purpose.

[DaivdBehar]

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is written at the 11th grade level. It uses the word, person. Why do the courts have so much trouble applying this Amendment?

[DaivdBehar]

Here is something beyond the understanding of the lawyer. The word Equal, means, the same. That means, a rule must be have adequate reliability. You must provide the reliability statistics. That is mandatory in the Fourteenth Amendment. The world's most reliable test, the IQ test, was deemed unlawful because diverses under perform on it. Now, where are the reliability statistics of the thousands of rules of the lawyer tyrant? They are mandatory according to this Amendment.

Here are the types of reliabilities and their measurements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(statistics)

[JasonT20]

The world's most reliable test, the IQ test, was deemed unlawful because diverses under perform on it.

I think you need to do a lot more work to support the claim that IQ tests are "the world's most reliable" tests. And I don't think there is a single test for it, either, to refer to "the" IQ test.

Not to mention that in the wiki article you linked, it makes an important point that statistical reliability is not the same thing as validity. A reliable test gives consistent results. A valid test accurately measures what you intend to measure. Reliability puts a limit on validity, but a test can be reliable and yet also lack validity.

That is the claim people are making when they claim that IQ tests are biased. They are saying that they think that IQ tests aren't just about inherent reasoning ability, but also depend on a person's knowledge, which can vary among different groups of people. I don't know if these criticism are correct, but that my understanding of what is being criticized when it comes to making broad claims about racial and ethnic differences in IQ.

[Frank Drackman]

So does "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not matter? Seems pretty clear to me, admittedly NAL (of any kind), that it wouldn't apply to foreigners who just coincidentally happen to be on US territory when they manage to escape a Governor Ralph Blackface partial birth Abortion....
So if Obama Bin Laden had hidden out in Arlington VA, instead of Pock-E-Ston (HT Barak Amurica) any children he fathered would be Amurican Citizens? Pretty sure not what they meant in 1865. So if a Roosh-un Diplomat has a baby in Amurica he/she/they are Amurican Citizens?

Frank "Born on the 4th of July (in the US of A)

[Jimmy the Dane]

Thus ultimately securing the dreams and wishes of the drafters of said amendment to allow men to marry men, constitutionally protect buggery, and many other unenumerated rights that oddly only left wing losers and weirdos ever wanted....

[DaivdBehar]

The lawyer profession intentionally misreads the plain language to impose ots degenerate tyranny on our hapless nation.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

I'm in WNC and people are wearing masks again. Also I read in one of the credible sources that our vaccinations and boosters (I had a Pfizer booster AND a Moderna a few weeks later.) are now only 20% effective. I hate to go back to wearing a mask again. Now another booster necessary? It's disheartening for an old geezer like me.

[Frank Drackman]

Western Nevada College? (would think there'd be sort of wide open spaces) The shots are bullshit!! (and I'm an MD (Mentally Deranged) and had all 3, You're gonna die of somthing, Embrace the Spike Proteins!!!!

Frank "Why am I coughing?"

[DaivdBehar]

Cute comment, Bro. The 14th Amendment applies to citizens, Hon.

[Brett Bellmore]

What irks me is the fact that the Court won't property clean up its own past messes. To this day they haven't actually overturned the Slaughterhouse case, and why the hell not?

I do want non-citizens to enjoy all the rights US citizens are entitled to... In the countries THEY are citizens of! But you come here, if you want the rights of citizenship, become one.

[Cal Cetín]

Non-citizens, even back in 1868, had the Law of Nations and various treaties to protect them from unequal treatment. This was before the Human Rights Revolution in international law - but even then a country couldn't deny equal justice to the foreigners it admitted into its territory.

[DaivdBehar]

Great point, Queenie. Killer comment.

[Mr. Bumble]

November is coming, but really they should stick to passing a budget first.

[Krayt]

I am sure Fox News will turn back into the Benghazi channel if Hillary runs again, as scummy politicians love to use the power of government to investigate political enemies.

Trump might run again, hence both federal government and state government pulling out all the stops to investigate him as political enemy, as scummy politicians love to to.

[Krayt]

Whoa! I just realized the commonality there! Politicians are scummy!

[Frank Drackman]

"Benghazi"??? (Have a GI Doc who's name (no shit) is "Ben Ghazzi"
Yeah, he took alot of shit (But no decrease in Earnings, Dude can wield a Colonoscope like Jackie Stewart in his prime)
Agree Hillary Rod-man (HT (The Very Wrong "Reverend" ) Jesse Jackson isn't to blame, only her Gau-Leiter (Jewish/German I know what it means) Barak Amurica (That's what "Sleepy/Somnolent" Joe called him) who tried to blame Ben-Ghazi (Poor guy's making a living looking up Ass-holes all day) on a Car-Toon....

Frank "Memory (and Nose) like an Elephant"

[DaivdBehar]

You have to understand. Pelosi net worth went from $40 million to $80 million when elected Speaker. Trump was nearly bankrupt when elected. Now, he is showing off his 757 jet. In his case, he earned his wealth as a small commission for revving the economy. The job numbers are the Trump Effect. The inflation is 100% the Biden Effect.

They are just making massive fortunes. So they fight dirty.

[JasonT20]

Incorrect. The Privileges or Immunities Clause references citizens, but the rest of Section 1 refers to persons.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[JasonT20]

As a normative matter, my opinion is that the only privileges or immunities I can think of that citizens should enjoy that non-citizens should not are the right to vote and the right not to be expelled from the country for any reason.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I do have trouble fitting my exceptionally large manhood in such a small hole....

Maybe the leftie losers you sleep with don't have said issue. I once saw a study that found men with small members were more likely to be liberal.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Obsession with size
Is a poor disguise.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You failed the grade school test when you had to put the shapes in corresponding holes, didn't you? I could dump an entire quart of 10W30 oil down there and still not get in my behemoth.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Then you have me to thank as I was the one showing your Mom how said test worked. How is she doing? It has been awhile.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, Queen(ie) "Golf Clap"
that's a line I would normally use,
Not saying I'm gonna let you finger the South 40 (Shit, you're a Dude anyway)
But I'd hook you up with the (Very Wrong Reverend) Jerry/Sandusky/Arthur T. Kirkland) sure you'd be "Easier" on his sphincter than his "Usual Suspects"

Frank

[Cal Cetín]

Due process applies to all persons, not just citizens.

The 14th Amendment awards citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized" in the United States, but that doesn't mean someone isn't a person pre-naturalization (or pre-birth).

[Mr. Bumble]

But what gives a non-citizen, specifically an illegal alien (that is opposed to a green card holder, visa holder or other legal permanent resident) a right to challenge there removal, which seems to be what is occurring?

[Brett Bellmore]

But why should your normative opinions override what actually got ratified as a constitutional amendment? That's what the Slaughterhouse Court was doing, only with slightly different normative opinions...

[Jimmy the Dane]

I so embarrassed you. Hahahaha!

[Mr. Bumble]

Pathetic grade school shit.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Says the guy who probably has a teenie weenie....

[Mr. Bumble]

Comment was intended for the queen. Don't know why you play her game.
Teenie or not it still works.

[Frank Drackman]

You see alot of them?

[Cal Cetín]

(also "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" before anyone steps in to point that out)

[Mr. Bumble]

You sound like Kirkland's (the Costco house brand) alter ego or doppelganger.
In either case; piss off, fucktard.

[Mr. Bumble]

As Dana Carvey would say: Aren't you special.

[Frank Drackman]

Opinions are like your asshole,
leaking, and with evidence of past infections (Not that there's anything wrong with that)
So what burns more? the Liquid Nitrogen or Podophyllin??
Never good at judging screams,

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you think the goals of the 13th and 14th Amendments could have better been achieved by statute rather than amendment.

[JasonT20]

But why should your normative opinions override what actually got ratified as a constitutional amendment?

I didn't say that they should. But given that due process and equal protection of the law is guaranteed to all people, citizen or not, in the amendment that was ratified, that should cover quite a bit of the essential human rights of all people.

[DaivdBehar]

Great comment, Bruh. You got me.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, Queen, don't take this the wrong way,
I know you're some Pervo Trans/Queer/Butt-fucker, hey, "Don't Ask, Don't Smeel" I always say,
But, disparaging Mothers, Moms, Mutters, MAMMIES!!!!"
get your ass killed, not, Not, NOt, NOT!!! by me,
Peoples, especially those of the African-Amurican Pursuasian,
OK, they'll kill you because you drive an "Upscale Car" (That was actually the "Motive" for a recent ATL murder, unfortunate Decedent drove one of those Money Grubbing Honda Accords (are pretty sweet)

Just saying, when "D'andre'Julius'Kareem'Wilt, L'Bron, M'agic" shows up,
don't answer

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I agree!! It/He/She/They are Hu-mans(If they can stay away from Governor (D) Ralph Blackface Northern)
doesn't mean I play that Jail/give-up-the-booty/ Bullshit, but hey,
if we can agree a "Zygot" (That Waterhead Claire Mc-Ass-Kill pronounced it that way) is a Human Bean, maybe we can get you back into Men's clothes, (Doubtful)

Frank

[John F. Carr]

This is a perennial story. It spreads or not depending on the media's mood and the public's mood.

If Texas did allow fetuses to count as passengers the Biden administration could cut federal highway funds or revoke permits. Most HOV lanes are created to win favor from federal agencies. It is up to the federal government to decide if the implementation is satisfactory.

[Frank Drackman]

Forewarned is Forearmed,
it won't be me (or anyone I know, knew, will know, and I prefer your tenesmus over any slobberings from "The Reverend" JerrySandusky/Artur/Kirtland (as fun as it is to dick slap him) but that attitude isn't wise for longevity..

Frank "Leave Moms out of it, if you want to live (again not me, but certain Peoples, especially those with nappy hair and ... will drop a hammer on you (probably what's behind the Abe Assassination (Hey, gut followed Sleepy's advice "Got a Shotgun!"),

[Estragon]

What the heck is wrong with you two?

[JasonT20]

All persons are entitled to due process of law. At a minimum, a person should be able to challenge that they are present in the country illegally.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to let alleged non-citizens challenge their removal, or else the government can allege that citizens are non-citizens, and kick them out of the country. That's pretty basic. But that's due process, and not substantive, either. What are privileges and immunities? Things you are entitled to do, and things that can't be done to you, essentially. Not procedure.

From the Congressional Globe:

"May 23, 1866

Senator Jacob Howard, R-MI:

. . . It will be observed that this is a general prohibition upon all the States, as such, from abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. That is its first clause, and I regard it as very important. It also prohibits each one of the States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of its laws.

The first clause of this section relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as such, and as distinguished from all other persons not citizens of the United States. It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, “citizen of the United States.” . . . A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws. . . .

It would be a curious question to solve what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of each of the States in the several States. I do not propose to go at any length into that question at this time. . . . [I]t is certain the clause was inserted in the Constitution for some good purpose. . . . [W]e may gather some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary by referring to a case adjudged many years ago in one of the circuit courts of the United States by Judge [Bushrod] Washington.4 . . . It is the case of Corfield vs. Coryell. . . . Judge Washington says: . . .

The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain notions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental, to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. . . .

Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. . . ."

[Cal Cetín]

Designating some as citizens post-birth or post-naturalization doesn't logically mean that they weren't even *persons* before that point.

Given the way I phrased it, I simply pre-butted one specific argument against fetal personhood.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, because without an amendment, they wouldn't have been within the federal government's enumerated powers, and they were still serious about those at the time.