This case will certainly go before the Supreme Court, and however it is decided, the case will carry implications that will affect American immigration policy for many years — and if the court finds for the plaintiffs, we should note that ending birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. A lot is riding on this for both sides.
Birthright citizenship is generally not the rule in most of the world, but in the Americas, it seems to be widely accepted; Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and indeed most of the New World seem to have some form or another of birthright citizenship. We should note, though, that most of these countries aren't beset with millions trying to gain illegal entry to take advantage of these policies. //
WilliamRD
7 hours ago
Indians and their children didn't get citizenship until 1924 when congress passed the Indian citizenship act. . There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Snowblind WilliamRD
6 hours ago
Except Indians born on a reservation are not born in the US.
Snowblind WilliamRD
2 hours ago
But they were sovereign nations unto themselves at the time the 14th was ratified.
The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 ended that, but again, at the time of the 14th amendment they were not. //
Mike Ford
5 hours ago edited
"...subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
Jurisdiction thereof has TWO components:
- Legal jurisdiction and;
2 Sovereign Jurisdiction or citizen allegiance.
If my buddy Ward goes to Germany and walks into the Hürtgen Forest with his trusty guide gun and attempts to get himself a boar, the Politzi will arrest him.
-
He will be charged under German Law, which has legal jurisdiction over that act in Germany (and he also may be subject to U.S. law (especially if he is a Soldier and outside SOFA boundaries)).
-
He will NOT lose his citizenship...ie, the U.S. retains SOVEREIGN jurisdiction over him.
Now...let's take a Colombian couple who dash across the border and evade ICE. She (not he..."he's" can't do that) drops a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is a Colombian citizen. Period. Full Stop.
Why? Because the couple and the baby are not subject to the full/complete (legal AND sovereign, jurisdiction of these United States.
This issue has been made needlessly complex by leftists and their lawyers.
It's time to end this travesty...by specific legislation or a SCOTUS decision that defines a U.S. citizen as anyone who is born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen on the date of that birth.
I'm sorry for the bad acts of Democrats that have resulted in children who were born here and know no other country. That ain't our problem.
Send their parents and them back to country of origin. If they want to come here, get in line like the mother of my children, my sisters-in-law (from Central America) and a brother-in-law from Austria...all of whom own businesses,, employ folk and pay way too many taxes.
This isn't hard. We are making it so. //
MN-Gal2022 ConservativeInMinnesota
6 hours ago
Hey!
i think it was you who had posted some context from the authors of the amendment.
If I recall correctly they specifically said this did not apply to those here illegally.
do you still have the text of that explanation?
ConservativeInMinnesota MN-Gal2022
2 hours ago
It was. Here it is for reference:
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.
What it means in the words of Senator Jacob Howard who co-authored the 14th Amendment:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
What it means in the words of Senator Trumbull who co-author the 14th Amendment on the “subject to the jurisdiction”:
not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. //
David135
5 hours ago
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....
If being born on USA soil was sufficient, the line would simply be....
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens..
Obviously, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something besides the accepted understanding of birthright citizenship.
John Q. Public David135
4 hours ago
People trying to suggest that they wasted the ink and calligraphy on that line for absolutely no reason are insane.
Milley, the retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who on several occasions subverted orders from his Commander-in-Chief, had his portrait removed from the Pentagon within two hours of President Donald Trump's inauguration.
The portrait's removal has been confirmed by CNN and Reuters. It had been revealed just 10 days ago. //
Of those pardoned by Biden, Milley stands out as having taken actions that could reasonably be described as treason. It is far from hyperbole in the case of the former Joint Chiefs Chair.
Milley, according to a book titled "Peril," assured his counterpart, General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army of China, in the final days of Trump's first term that the United States military would not strike the communist country. Even if Trump ordered such actions based on his assessment they were in the best interest of the defense of America.
Perhaps most astonishing was the quote from that book, which shows Milley was willing to warn China — a hostile foreign nation — if an attack was in the works. //
Trump's nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, in an exclusive interview with RedState, suggested Milley contravened authorization from then-President Trump regarding the deployment of the National Guard on January 6th.
Milley had claimed the National Guard was deployed to the Capitol at “sprint speed.”
However, congressional testimony from Brig. Gen. Aaron R. Dean II, then the Guard’s adjutant general, suggested the deployment was stalled for the sake of optics, as evidenced by several calls to Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army at the time, to commence deployment going "directly to voice mail.". //
MyDogsMum TXavatar
7 hours ago
Does the pardon exempt him from a dishonorable discharge?
Mike Ford MyDogsMum
6 hours ago edited
Yes. A dishonorable requires conviction by a General Court Martial. A GCM is part of the same federal “sovereign.”
The Biden pardon precludes that
Streiff and I had that phone conversation earlier today.
Having said that, the pardon removes his self incrimination protection and do he can be compelled to testify regarding anything he has done prior to the Biden pardon.
Carey J Dolfin9999
6 hours ago
The Fifth Amendment only protects you from self-incrimination, which requires legal jeopardy. The pardon removed the legal jeopardy, making it impossible for him to incriminate himself. Therefore, he can be required to testify about ANYTHING he has knowledge of, or face Contempt of Court/Congress charges. If he lies under oath, he is subject to perjury charges.
this is a final moment of shame for what is now inarguably the worst presidency in modern history. He has deeply abused his power to protect people from the repercussions of the law while repeatedly claiming to be "defending democracy." Does handing out pardons like candy for unspecified crimes while claiming the recipients didn't do anything wrong sound like defending democracy to you? This is the move of a third-world dictator, not a President of the United States. //
polyjunkie
an hour ago
Posted elsewhere but germane here:
What FJB has just set precedent for is utterly corrupt and may bring down our Republic.
Consider this: Now a President’s minions can do anything he wants them to do and be pardoned for it. For example, a future president could order the assassination of political rivals, then pardon the assassin. If there are objections by Congress or the Courts, a few more assassinations and pardons will solve that problem. FJB has just set the stage for a future president to end his political opposition because he is effectively untouchable. Now executive branch members are effectively above the law. They can lie to Congress, the Courts, the public, and there are no consequences.
FJB, you despicable a$$hole. //
jester6 polyjunkie
an hour ago edited
This is several orders of magnitude worse than the presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. US that the left freaked out about.
And it's not just that Biden did it, it's that a significant part of the country supports it. Politics is the art of the possible. The scenario you describe above is not only possible, it is more or less likely at this point. //
Ed in North Texas anon-shh5
an hour ago
Not at all a precedent. Been done before, will be done again. Pardoning people who have not been criminally charged goes back to George Washington and on to Ford's Nixon Pardon (Nixon had not been criminally charged, not even with an Article of Impeachment introduced or passing the House).
CNN was found liable on Friday for defaming U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young.
Following roughly eight hours of deliberations, jurors found CNN both “committed defamation per se” and “committed defamation by implication.”
Jurors awarded Young $4 million in economic damages and $1 million in emotional damages and agreed that punitive damages are warranted, prompting phase 2 of the trial. Punitive damages will be awarded to Young to dissuade CNN and other networks from doing what CNN did.
The case arose after CNN aired a segment in November of 2021 on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that falsely framed Young as exploiting Afghans by offering evacuations from Afghanistan on a “black market.” A court later found Young did nothing illegal. Young alleged the segment “rendered Young permanently unemployable” because the use of the term “black market” in the chyron implied Young was engaged in illegal conduct — something his defense contracts expressly prohibited.
Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released the following statement today on the Equal Rights Amendment and the constitutional responsibilities for administering the ratification process:
“As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
“The role of the Archivist of the United States is to follow the law as it stands, ensuring the integrity of our nation’s governing institutions. Personal opinion or beliefs are not relevant; as the leaders of the National Archives, we support established legal processes and decisions.
nebraskared
an hour ago
So let me get this straight...Jack Smith, who should never have begun a case, seeks by any means possible, mostly inuendo, to put Trump in jail gets to release his "report" and nobody named in the report for any reason can defend themselves from Smith's, largely, slander. Smith gets to resign with what he would consider clean hands even though once again he failed to complete his assignment in terms of law, but succeeds to rub people's reputations in the mud. Makes you wonder if Biden will give Smith a pardon,...or maybe a Medal of Freedom,... with distinction.
bk
38 minutes ago
What happened to the idea of "the fruit of the poisoned tree" given his appointment was not legit?
DaveM bk
26 minutes ago edited
To date Cannon is the only Court that has ruled Smith's appointment unlawful.
And if it gets appealed the 11'th Circuit Appeals Court will uphold his appointment.
Not once has the 11'th circuit Appeals Court ruled against Smith or in favor of Trump and his co-defendants.
Hogan testified Friday that the story he green-lit prior to publication did not include the term “black market,” and that it was Jake Tapper who included that term.
“The text of the story did not do that,” Hogan testified. “The banner and Jake Tapper’s lead-in did that.”
Nonetheless, Hogan later testified that he thought describing the situation as a “black market” was “accurate” and disputed the allegation that “black market” has a “negative connotation.”
Young alleges the use of the term “black market” to describe his evacuation efforts “rendered Young permanently unemployable” because it implied Young was involved in illegal conduct. Young later testified that his defense contracts expressly prohibited involvement in “black markets.” Notably, a court also found Young did not commit a crime. //
Young had previously testified that he needed more than two hours to respond to the inquiry to seek guidance from other individuals and organizations he worked with. Young also said in messages to Marquardt that the two-hour deadline was “definitely not a realistic deadline” but that “in any case, I can tell you for sure, some of your facts/assertions [are] not accurate, and if they are published, I will seek legal damages.”
CNN still aired the segment, shared it on social media and CNN’s website, and re-aired the segment before later issuing an apology months later. Young is seeking punitive damages.
A federal judge ruled Friday that American Airlines's pension fund had violated the law by making investment decisions using criteria other than the interests of the plan beneficiaries. The decision by Judge Reed O'Connor, a George Bush appointee serving the Northern District of Texas, comes from a decision by American Airlines management to allow the pension fund to be managed by BlackRock, which in turn used Environmental, Social, and Governance principles rather than financial performance to guide investment. //
For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the facts compellingly demonstrated that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to loyally act solely in the retirement plan’s best financial interests by allowing their corporate interests, as well as BlackRock’s ESG interests, to influence management of the plan. However, the facts do not compel the same result for the duty of prudence. Defendants acted according to prevailing industry practices, even if leaders in the fiduciary industry contrived to set the standard. This is fatal to Plaintiff’s breach of prudence claim. //
The day before Judge O'Connor ruled that BlackRock had sacrificed the pension payout to plan beneficiaries on the altar of ESG investing, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, with $11.5 trillion in assets under management, announced its withdrawal from Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, an international group of asset management companies "committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner."
This makes BlackRock the latest asset manager to reconsider the business model of screwing over investors in exchange for invitations to all the right events. //
The exits are clearly linked to the American Airlines lawsuit, which imposes liability for damages on asset managers for breaching their fiduciary responsibility. One can't ignore the effect of an incoming Congress that is skeptical of ESG. Last summer, the House Judiciary Committee labeled the ESG movement as violating antitrust law.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky – Northern Division blocked President Joe Biden’s Title IX rewrite, known as the Final Rule. The ruling applies nationwide.
“Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied,” wrote the Court. //
The Final Rule had gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics.
The Department refused to provide a narrow definition of “sex” “to avoid overbroad application of a prohibition on discrimination based on sex stereotypes.” //
The Court stressed that Title IX’s phrase “on the basis of sex” means exactly what it says when Title IX became law: Sex is female or male. Title IX protects human beings born female. Basic biology! //
The Department of Education also threatened to punish those who refuse to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns.
Well, the Court ruled that violated the First Amendment //
The Final Rule violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause since it threatened to withhold funds from schools that did not abide by the rewrite.
Legislation must satisfy a four-prong test to limit federal funds.
The Court found the Final Rule did not satisfy the fourth prong: “the conditions must not induce unconstitutional action.”. //
Bruce Hayden | January 9, 2025 at 3:34 pm
I find interesting the use of vacatur, which, by necessity, is nationwide. If a regulation violates the APA, and is thus void, it makes no sense for it to be void in just the ED of KY. Void is void, and that is what the APA calls for.
This is in contrast to nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court. How does a single district court, in a single district in a single state have the power to issue a nationwide injunction? It doesn’t typically have jurisdiction over most of the parties involved. The use of nationwide injunctions had grown enormously over the last decade or two, and became increasingly controversial by its overreach, esp in suits pushed by the left. Vacatur of regulations subject to the APA is more defensive in nature, merely preventing the government from imposing non-compliant regulations.
To preserve the status quo as this Court awaits resolution by the Eleventh Circuit of the similar Emergency Motion, to prevent irreparable harm arising from the circumstances as described in the current record in this emergency posture, and to permit an orderly and deliberative sequence of events, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
- Pending resolution of the Emergency Motion filed in the Eleventh Circuit and/or any further direction from the Eleventh Circuit, Attorney General Garland, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Smith, all of their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting inactive concert or participation with such individuals, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), TEMPORARILY ENJOINED from (a) releasing, sharing, or transmitting the Final Report or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice, or (b) otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in the Final Report or in drafts thereof. This Order remains in effect until three days after resolution by the Eleventh Circuit of the Emergency Motion, unless the Eleventh Circuit orders otherwise. //
USA_Proud anon-nn7q
13 hours ago
While it will take a while to change the leadership in the DOJ even after the top gets appointed, it will be very risky for Any DOJ Employee to leak that report. I believe that the Trump Administration would be very likely to collect a few proverbial 'scalps' on defiant DOJ Law deniers early in their Administration, and this would be an excellent test case. The report had material from Grand Jury testimony, that by law, is not releasable. It was collected by a person not eligible by Law to collect it. A Federal Judge ruled against its release. If it does get leaked by a Federal Employee, they not only will be liable for many Criminal charges, they also would be liable to civil charges by the US Citizens illegally disparaged by the leak of this information. That would be grounds for denying their Pension, or having it awarded to those so disparaged. While I would be upset that innocent citizens would be disparaged by its leak, there is some comfort that there would be both punitive and compensatory effects of this leak.
At the end of each year—only hours before a new year begins—Roberts releases his “Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.” Think of it as a written “State of the Judiciary” address. In this latest report, he focused on “four areas of illegitimate activity that … threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends.”
What are those threats? According to Roberts, they’re “(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”
Unfortunately, Trump cannot undo Biden’s executive order.
Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), a law established in 1953, states, “the President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.”
Trump needs Congress to change the law. That could happen since the GOP controls the House and Senate.
No one can receive a lease to drill for oil, gas, or other minerals in those areas.
OCSLA lacks language that allows a future president to undo an executive order under Section 12(a).
Former President Barack Obama issued a similar executive order on December 20, 2016.
In April 2017, Trump signed an executive order to undo Obama’s order.
Activist groups challenged Trump’s order.
In 2019, US District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, based in Alaska, overturned Trump’s executive order, leaving in place Obama’s protection of the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea and the East Coast of America.
The battle of wits had begun. And Kinzinger clearly went into a gunfight with a spork.
“Just a quick point, both parties have always accepted the presidential election until one, four years ago,” Kinzinger falsely claimed.
Jennings countered, quite simply, “False, they have not."
Curtis Houck @CurtisHouck
·
PANTS ON FIRE: Adam Kinzinger falsely claims Scott Jennings lied in saying this was the first time in our lifetime both parties won't object to a presidential election result.
Kinzinger and Ashley Allison say Jennings mentioning 2000, 2004, and 2016 are why we're so divided
1:36 PM · Jan 6, 2025. //
Democrats have objected to election results in each of the Republican-won elections this century.
In 2000, 15 Democrats, including 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the time, would object to counting Florida’s electoral votes.
This was after then-Vice President Al Gore refused to accept the free and fair election results and would not concede defeat to George W. Bush. He instead tied up the election process through litigation in the courts for months.
Gore consistently lost his bid to overturn the election results in the lower courts and kept fighting in the Florida Supreme Court. He would not concede until mid-December of that year, a month and a half after Election Day.
In 2004, 31 Democrats voted in favor of rejecting electoral votes from Ohio, trying to delegitimize President Bush once again, despite the fact that he won the electoral count by a wider margin and the popular vote count over John Kerry.
In 2016, seven different Democrats objected 11 times to certifying the results of the 2016 presidential election victory for Donald Trump. Additionally, 67 Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration, with many claiming “his election was illegitimate.”
There was violence in the streets, and Democrat lawmakers were most assuredly trying to “obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of the presidential election, just as Republicans are accused of doing on January 6.
Never forget. //
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and ten other senators objected to the certification of the 2020 election. It wasn't a unique tactic by any stretch. If anything, Democrats wrote the playbook on election denialism.
Ready2Squeeze
an hour ago
Having experienced this on a very small scale for an organization I work with - the whole concept of contingency fee based lawfare needs to be addressed. We went through a lawsuit where a disgruntled party shows up with a slip and fall lawyer and made ludicrous claims on us owing money for a project. We had the numbers and cancelled checks to prove that the claims were crazy and by the time we were about to go to trial 90% of the original ask of a 7 figure number were thrown out or withdrawn by the plaintiff. Just before going to trial the plaintiffs lawyer offered a deal for a tiny fraction of the original claim. Our trial lawyer indicated that if we went to trial our costs would be close to 6 figures - he was sure that the plaintiffs remaining claims would be denied and that we were more than likely to win on our countersuit for legal fees (this had dragged on for YEARS so they were substantial - again multiple 6 figures) and for shoddy work on the original project which were originally not interested in pursuing for complicated reasons. He also said that even if we won - we would not collect a penny as the plaintiff already had multiple judgements against them and had no assets in their name. So we wound up paying for having been put through this as that amount was a fraction of what a trial would have cost - with no reward for winning.
How did we get to that point - the plaintiffs lawyer had nothing to lose - he just put in some time (very minimal based on what he turned over in discovery) for the possibility of a large chunk of a 7 figure settlement. The amount we wound up paying him probably easily covered his time and expenses. In the meantime - we had to PAY our legal bills and had no way of recovering the costs from the plaintiff - who never would have pursued this lawsuit if he had to pay for his lawyer up front. So the plaintiff swung and missed, the plaintiffs lawyer didn't make a windfall but did alright, and we were f**ked.
Here's the point - in these contingency cases - the lawyer is not just providing legal assistance - they are forgoing payment in lieu of what they hope to be a big payday if they win. If they lose the only thing invested is some time. The lawyer in a contingency case is actually a party to the lawsuit as they have a monetary vested interest in the outcome of the case, therefore they should be on the hook for at least legal costs if they lose and their client can't/won't pay. This would eliminate tons of these lawsuits and make it worthwhile for defendants to aggressively push back and not settle to avoid continuing legal fees.
Nauta and De Oliveira claim that Smith, whose appointment as Special Counsel was ruled unconstitutional by the court, lacks the authority to issue a report under federal regulations. The motion also emphasizes that the report would unfairly influence public opinion and taint any potential jury pool while legal appeals are still pending. Defense attorneys describe the report as a "one-sided narrative" that improperly uses grand jury materials and privileged information. //
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Could Merrick Garland and his staff, plus other DOJ Officials TBD potentially face criminal investigation for improper access/disclosure of Rule 6(e) materials to Jack Smith after he was DQ'd from the Florida case, and the D.C. case was dismissed?
Violations of Rule 6(e) are subject to a criminal penalty.
If Jack Smith still has access to those materials for purposes of writing his "Report" to the AG, has he been provided unauthorized access in violation of the Rule????
10:00 PM · Jan 6, 2025. //
The defendants argue that the report would serve as an impermissible "public verdict," undermining their right to a fair trial. They further claim that releasing the report would disregard federal grand jury secrecy rules and the court’s previous rulings that disqualified Smith from the case.
With precious few exceptions, American schools are graduating more and more students who are illiterate, innumerate, illogical and ignorant. //
It’s the first case filed against Big Education for “deceptive and fraudulent marketing and sale of products and services” — products that allegedly caused developmental, emotional, and financial injuries.
This complaint goes straight to the heart of the matter: Big Education provides a glaringly defective product that causes undeniable harm and is demonstrably fraudulent — and its consumers, America’s families, are entitled to protection under existing consumer-protection laws. //
The Massachusetts lawsuit focuses on reading and literacy, charging that the plaintiffs have been materially harmed by these curricula — but a win could allow the families’ consumer-protection argument to be deployed more widely. //
The logic of the Massachusetts lawsuit could even be used against damaging social and disciplinary policies in our schools.
For years, Big Education has been pushing diversity, equity, and inclusion principles into every aspect of school life, promising it will bring racial harmony.
Yet systematic meta-analyses of data, capped by a widely cited study from Rutgers University, confirm that DEI has in fact the opposite effect, aggravating overall racial bias and hostility.
Big Education’s multibillion-dollar DEI fraud is ripe for consumer-protection accountability.
looking at Judge Mazzant’s order, which stayed implementation of the statute in question provides some insight into what he found objectionable:
Legislative ingenuity, dispatched to meet today’s problems, is not measured by any other standard than our written Constitution. Modern problems may well warrant modern solutions, but modernity does not grant Congress a roving license to legislate outside the boundaries of our timeless, written Constitution. See, e.g., Louisiana v. Biden, 55 F.4th 1017, 1032 (5th Cir. 2022) (“The Constitution is not abrogated[, even] in a pandemic.”). The Constitution must stand firm. //
At its most rudimentary level, the CTA regulates companies that are registered to do business under a State’s laws and requires those companies to report their ownership, including detailed, personal information about their owners, to the Federal Government on pain of severe penalties. Though seemingly benign, this federal mandate marks a drastic two-fold departure from history. First, it represents a Federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law—a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several States. Second, the CTA ends a feature of corporate formation as designed by various States—anonymity. For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government. As a result, Plaintiffs contend that the CTA violates the promises our constitution makes to the People and the States. Despite attempting to reconcile the CTA with the Constitution at every turn, the Government is unable to provide the Court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power. And even in the face of the deference the Court must give Congress, the CTA appears likely unconstitutional. Accordingly, the CTA and its Implementing Regulations must be enjoined. //
the record before the Court contains sufficient facts to indicate the CTA and the Reporting Rule may violate the Constitution…Absent injunctive relief, come January 2, 2025, Plaintiffs would have disclosed the information they seek to keep private under the First and Fourth Amendments and surrendered to a law that they contend exceeds Congress’s powers. That damage “cannot be undone by monetary relief.” That harm is irreparable. //
The court also held that the CTA was not valid under the commerce clause because “[t]he CTA does not regulate channels of, or instrumentalities in, commerce,” only formation of corporations and reporting about them. And, “[t]he CTA does not regulate an activity—it creates one.” //
Christopher B | January 1, 2025 at 10:42 am
As a board member of a non-profit that would be impacted by this, I’m happy to see the injunction back. We have some folks on our board who have to deal with this in a professional capacity, and their opinion is generally that FinCen and other TLAs want a way to get at this information without having to obtain a warrant since it largely exists in various databases but not under their control.
Pro-life activist Paul Vaughn, the president of Personhood Tennessee tested before the committee about his experience as a defendant changed by Biden's DOJ under the FACE Act.
Vaughn detailed the terrifying events of October 5, 2022 when his home was raided by the FBI for peacefully protesting an abortion facility: //
House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 @JudiciaryGOP
·
Pro-life advocate Paul Vaughn opened his front door to find 3 FBI agents with guns trained on him.
He was arrested without a warrant for his efforts to protect the sanctity of life.
WATCH him recount his story of being victimized by Joe Biden's weaponized DOJ.
2:29 PM · Dec 18, 2024 //
Vaughn, a Chrstian father of eleven children, testified that three of his children were detained and that he was never presented with identification from law enforcement, nor a warrant: //
There is no legitimate reason for it to remain on the books. It is a tool whose sole purpose is to stifle free speech and abuse the rights of Christian conservatives. There is nothing that the FACE Act does that is not already accomplished by state laws across the land.
If abortion is returned to the States, so should the laws governing it. //
veritaseequitas
2 hours ago edited
The agents who did this need to be arrested and prosecuted for infringing upon the rights of these people. I assume they used the same tactics on those who are currently in jail.
Hopefully DJT will pardon these people.
Retired Professor
4 hours ago edited
A big, big part of this was Fani's failure to take a cross-appeal, as well as her prior failure to even preserve a proper record in the trial court for later use on appeal. This underscores what I've been saying for months about how Fani is not a very good lawyer, among her many other shortcomings, such as lack of judgment, etc.
Nevertheless, this is a very good outcome, and further ensures we have heard the last of this sham proceeding, as far as its impact on President Trump is concerned. But I'm sure Fani will continue to waste taxpayer money (as well as costing all the defendants more attorneys fees) by dragging this matter up to the Georgia Supreme Court, just to try to cover her eponymous anatomical part.
I hope all the defendants sue her and Nathan Wade for all they're worth when this is over.
Jake Schneider @jacobkschneider
·
🚨 BIDEN: "We've run a campaign that's basically scandal free. That's hard to do in American politics."
(Except covering up his obvious cognitive decline, peddling his family's influence, hiding classified documents, etc etc etc)
6:39 PM · Dec 15, 2024
It goes without saying that all such claims by the enfeebled president are demonstrably false. Consider: Bidenflation. Botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pardon-palooza. Mishandling of classified documents. Weaponizing his Justice Department. Failing to secure the release of the hostages in Gaza.
All of that barely scratches the surface of just how bad of a president Biden has been. The fact is that Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our country's worst, with a recent poll showing his abysmal performance over the past four years has earned him the bottom-most position.
What's a washed up politician to do to save his legacy with scant little time to do it? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) thinks she has the perfect solution: Make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) a Constitutional amendment. //
The Sunday version of The New York Times published a grotesque leftist wish list of things a weird assortment of people — Rick Steves and weed? — want Biden to do before he's booted from The White House. The premise? Biden couldn't debase himself anymore than he did by pardoning his own son, so he might as well do all sorts of additional shameful things. //
Gillibrand is running with the idea, writing:
With Republicans set to take unified control of government, Americans are facing the further degradation of reproductive freedom.
Fortunately, Mr. Biden has the power to enshrine reproductive rights in the Constitution right now. He can direct the national archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. This would mean that the amendment has been officially ratified and that the archivist has declared it part of the Constitution.
She thinks she's got it all figured out, saying “I’ve never done more legal analysis and work since I was a lawyer.” Here's the gist of it:
Both houses of Congress approved the amendment in 1972, but it was not ratified by the states in time to be added to the Constitution. Ms. Gillibrand has been pushing a legal theory that the deadline for ratification is irrelevant and unconstitutional. All that remains, she argues, is for Mr. Biden to direct the national archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, to publish the E.R.A. as the 28th Amendment. //
The late Phyllis Schlafly wrote her seminal "What’s Wrong with ‘Equal Rights’ for Women?" essay back in 1972, and every one of her points from then holds true today.
Why should we trade in our special privileges and honored status for the alleged advantage of working in an office or assembly line? Most women would rather cuddle a baby than a typewriter or factory machine. Most women find that it is easier to get along with a husband than a foreman or office manager. Offices and factories require many more menial and repetitious chores than washing dishes and ironing shirts. Women’s libbers do not speak for the majority of American women. American women do not want to be liberated from husbands and children.
Schlafly circa 1972 is pure gold: "The 'women’s lib' movement is not an honest effort to secure better jobs for women who want or need to work outside the home. This is just the superficial sweet-talk to win broad support for a radical 'movement.' Women’s lib is a total assault on the role of the American woman as wife and mother, and on the family as the basic unit of society." //
Devin
10 minutes ago
The deadline the states missed is completely relevant - it was in the amendment itself. So since they didn't meet the deadline, it failed. To pass it, it has to be re-introduced and voted on again