Jump to content

Anastasis

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    30,208
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Anastasis

  1. Another intelligence agency shifts their assessment. Now doe, fbi, and cia all lean lab leak. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/25/us/politics/cia-covid-lab-leak.html? C.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid’s Origins A new analysis that began under the Biden administration is released by the C.I.A.’s new director, John Ratcliffe, who wants the agency to get “off the sidelines” in the debate.
  2. Cause that would amount to a human rights abuse.
  3. Yeah, a few of the SEC filings on the Costco website indicate the same. If the tone of the two SEC filings are consistent with the reporting proposal, it makes a whole lot of sense why 98% voted it down. I wish I still held COST. I moved out of a COVID era position prior to run up in 2024, but I think that is a really well run company.
  4. Can you post the text of the article? It was behind a paywall for me.
  5. What does report on the potential risk mean? What specifically was being ask for? If the shareholders voted against even assessing the risks and the outcomes of the programs, that is a pretty right out repudiation of the proposal. What think tank was pushing the vote?
  6. Indians get royally fucked under the current system. I have had the discuss a few times with one of my guys and their green card process is incomprehensible. He's close to the top of the list (as I understand it) and his kids are all very young, but for those with kids in the teenage years it could get to be a very dicey situation as they near 18 if the parent isn't on a landing approach to citizenship.
  7. I don't think that any of this gets proved up by the information that may be released. But I appreciate you putting this out there for discussion. Do you think that there was any foreign entity involvement?
  8. Keep going, of course. Appears that there will be a couple different phases to the plan and then information hopefully coming out. Just be careful because apparently if you are interested in seeing or discussing this information you are clearly just a gluttonous consumer of russia state media.
  9. TNXP stonking again today, +27% atm. Hell of a run this week.
  10. Thanks for linking the CRS piece. From that document, the various concepts of "jurisdiction" as the focus of the debate here seems distinct from legal jurisdiction in the sense of one being subject to the states ability to prosecute a murder. But in reality I think that's all a side show. If you want to fundamentally change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it is being applied, it should be amended through the appropriate process. “Ascriptive” versus “Consensual” Conceptions of Citizenship What is generally considered the majority view, embodied in applicable law and policy, is that the Fourteenth Amendment does require U.S. citizenship to be automatically conferred on “[a]ll persons born … in the United States”; and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes from that general rule only certain common-law-based exceptions to the jus soli doctrine, for those born in the United States to foreign diplomats, hostile occupying forces, or members of recognized Indian tribes. Legally, the “jurisdiction” referred to by the Citizenship Clause is territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of a sovereign to enforce its laws within its territorial limits.104 This conventional interpretation has been called the “ascriptive” view (at least by some opponents) because it determines citizenship by the objective geographical circumstances of a person’s birth.105 On the other side, some argue that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require U.S. citizenship to be automatically granted to persons born in the United States to aliens, especially those aliens who are present unlawfully or who are domiciled elsewhere.106 The core of this argument is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to codify a limitation on the birthright citizenship principle that, in the words of two of its early proponents, “demanded a more or less complete, direct power by government over the individual, and a reciprocal relationship between them at the time of birth, in which the government consented to the individual’s presence and status and offered him complete protection.”107 The “jurisdiction” referred to by the Citizenship Clause, in this view, is a more “complete” jurisdiction that entails undivided allegiance.108 This opposing view has been called the “consensual” approach, as its proponents would “make political membership a product of mutual consent by the polity and the individual.”109 In short, as one of the aforementioned Hamdi v. Rumsfeld amicus brief argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court in 2004, “t is not the physical location of birth that defines citizenship, but the express or implied consent to jurisdiction of the sovereign.”110 It is 104 See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 683-686 (1898) (analyzing The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812)); see also, e.g., Dellinger, supra footnote 18; Robert E. Mensel, Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and its generally acknowledged that opposition to the conventional interpretation is the minority viewpoint.111
  11. Can you unpack that for me. FTR, imo the proper way to address any concerns re: birthright citizenship is through the constitutional amendment process. Bad precedent to set if EOs can be used to meaningful alter the common interpretation of an existing amendment. If there are problems in interpreting and applying the amendment, it should be clarified via the appropriate process.
  12. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/ "I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind." The states argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
  13. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdjzgbjvo/01232025tro.pdf
  14. PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER January 20, 2025 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text. Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order. (c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship. Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order. (b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities. Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order: (a) “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor. (b) “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor. Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 20, 2025.
  15. Section 1 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
  16. Hagbard, do you think that the existing redactions get at this stuff? I don't. I am legit curious as to what you think the remaining redactions are related to. I don't think any of the JFK stuff has anything to do with the actual assassination. The MLK stuff is going to be really fucked up though. I feel pretty good on that. Cause well, you know.
  17. Legit may update my avatar, cause that is hilarious. But it doesn't really require a tin foil hat to take the position that all of the documents related to these assassinations should have been released a long time ago. There is no legitimate reason for them to remain classified. I don't think that they are going to show anything new, which only leaves curiosity into what exactly it is that the government thinks that they need to shield your eyes from. If there is anything damaging here, I think it comes from the MLK files. So let's see.
  18. Just like pulling a red ball out of a bag. I don't think that I have registered any opinion on this one. I happy to see any related materials declassified, but for a variety of reasons I don't think that there will be anything revelatory here. Of the three I think that the MLK FBI files could be the most interesting. Maybe we get more insights into the absolutely vile and disgusting shit that the FBI did to MLK.
  19. Executive order signed today. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declassification-of-records-concerning-the-assassinations-of-president-john-f-kenned/ By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy and Purpose. More than 50 years after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Federal Government has not released to the public all of its records related to those events. Their families and the American people deserve transparency and truth. It is in the national interest to finally release all records related to these assassinations without delay. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 required all records related to the assassination of President Kennedy to be publicly disclosed in full by October 26, 2017, unless the President certifies that: (i) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (ii) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure. President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, section 5(g)(2)(D), Public Law 102-526, 106 Stat. 3443, 3448–49, codified at 44 U.S.C. 2107 note. I previously accepted proposed redactions from executive departments and agencies (agencies) in 2017 and 2018, but ordered the continued re-evaluation of those remaining redactions. See Temporary Certification for Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,307–08 (Oct. 31, 2017); Certification for Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 83 Fed. Reg. 19, 157–58 (Apr. 26, 2018). In the Presidential Memorandum of April 26, 2018, I also ordered agencies to re-review each of those redactions over the next 3 years and disclose information that no longer warrants continued withholding under the standard set forth in section 5(g)(2)(D) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. President Biden issued subsequent certifications with respect to these records in 2021, 2022, and 2023, which gave agencies additional time to review the records and withhold information from public disclosure. See Temporary Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 86 Fed. Reg. 59,599 (Oct. 22, 2021); Certifications Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 87 Fed. Reg. 77,967 (Dec. 15, 2022); Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 88 Fed. Reg. 43,247 (June 30, 2023). I have now determined that the continued redaction and withholding of information from records pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is not consistent with the public interest and the release of these records is long overdue. And although no Act of Congress directs the release of information pertaining to the assassinations of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I have determined that the release of all records in the Federal Government’s possession pertaining to each of those assassinations is also in the public interest. Sec. 2. Declassification and Disclosure. (a) Within 15 days of the date of this order, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Counsel to the President, present a plan to the President for the full and complete release of records relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. (b) Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Counsel to the President, review records related to the assassinations of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and present a plan to the President for the full and complete release of these records. Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2025.
  20. They do a pepper steak at Sammy's right on 90 in castroville, and also at Cora's on 471. But if you go to Cora's and don't get a big order of nachos, you have made a serious serious mistake.
  21. Good example of what I am referring to. Just total nonsense.
  22. Love the coloring going on on top of that situation.
  23. My dad is a medina valley native and loves a good pepper steak. I told him it was just a stuffed hamburger and he did not seem amused.
  24. Right. Look, most of the posters here are well educated lawyers, physicians, operators, other professionals, etc. We should collectively be able to digest and discuss original source material. A lot of the material that serves as the basis for discussion and reaction here has instead been heavily processed and is just intended to reflect particular perspectives and bias. I assume that the training we all get at an elite institution like UT was not that very dissimilar across disciplines in this regard, and that these should not be foreign concepts to most of us.
×
×
  • Create New...