Comments by "Stephen Villano" (@spvillano) on "USA TODAY" channel.

  1. Wrong. If they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they cannot be detained or arrested. That's how diplomatic immunity works. Anyone else is subject to the jurisdiction and can be detained and arrested for a crime.
    3
  2.  @OperationSlap69  sorry, but no POTUS may just scratch out part of the Constitution that they disagree with.
    3
  3.  @Melodymaker99  Trump has no authority to amend the Constitution. He's literally declared himself king and can whim away the Constitution and every one of its protections. And the courts rightfully said, "Nope, you don't get to scratch out parts of the Constitution that you don't like". Presidents don't get to interpret the Constitution, that's the duty of the courts.
    2
  4.  @Melodymaker99  Trump cannot change the Constitution with his box of crayons. The Constitution has an amendment process that is to be followed and that amendment has withstood multiple court challenges in the past. We don't do an optional Constitution under order of god-king wannabe. Congress wrote the amendment, passed it with a supermajority, the states then ratified it and it is the law of the land that's remained unchallenged after the first few court cases established the case law. It's not going to suddenly mean something else after a century!
    2
  5. Only if they're declaring the US Constitution in abeyance, in which case their authority disappears.
    2
  6. Oh, so now it's corruption to uphold the US Constitution? What a fascinating notion!
    2
  7.  @Melodymaker99  you can keep on copy pasta that tripe all you want, it's still unconstitutional for a POTUS to constrain any part of the Constitution. Amendments are to be made only by Congress, with a 2/3 supermajority in favor, then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify. Courts cannot amend the Constitution, nor can a POTUS, who plays no part in the amendment process.
    2
  8.  @OperationSlap69  anyone not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or their state cannot be detained or arrested, as there is no jurisdiction to do so. That's how diplomatic immunity works and why diplomats children born in the US are not US citizens, as they're subject only to their nation's jurisdiction. Here's a hint, Congress wrote that amendment, requiring 2/3 supermajority of votes for it and obviously wouldn't have passed something flawed, then 3/4 of the state legislatures ratified it and they sure as hell wouldn't ratify a flawed amendment. It's withstood over a century of case law as well. No President can just take a crayon and scratch out any part of the US Constitution. He literally has no place in the amendment process.
    2
  9. Now the SCOTUS gets to write amendments? You must have a different Constitution than the US one!
    2
  10. The Constitution is not something a Chief Executive can scribble out sections he disagrees with with his crayons. The birthright citizenship was written in part to cover former slaves, but also exempts some via the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause for diplomats, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the states and federal government, but subject to the jurisdiction of their own government.
    2
  11. Easy. Bread and circuses.
    1
  12. Odd, the courts have repeatedly, for well over a century disagreed with that bullshit. All the way up to the SCOTUS. For such a reversal to occur would mean that the judiciary is now in the amendment writing business, which is the sole province of Congress.
    1
  13. Welcome to having freedom, there are known side effects. If they can be detained or arrested, they're subject to the jurisdiction and hence, born here are citizens here. Why would you want the US to have less citizens, rather than more?
    1
  14. The President may not amend the Constitution. Period. That's the job of Congress and the state legislatures. Amendments are a cast iron pain in the ass to get passed. They need 2/3 supermajority of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures majority to pass. And Presidents have absolutely no part in the process. At all. No matter how many crayons this one tries to use to scratch out a century old and change amendment.
    1
  15. OK, that means, under your misinterpretation, that these aliens cannot be detained or arrested and charged with a crime. Like diplomats, who are not subject to US jurisdiction and laws. And why diplomats children that are born in the US are not US citizens, since they're under the jurisdiction of their own nation. Anyone here that can be detained or arrested for a crime is obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the detaining or arresting power.
    1
  16. The judge is receiving his federal salary to enforce an over century old, well tested part of the US Constitution. And Presidents don't get to scratch out parts of the Constitution that they don't like. They have absolutely no part in the amendment process by design.
    1
  17. Subject to the jurisdiction is a simple concept. If the person is not subject to the jurisdiction, they cannot be detained or arrested for a crime. That's precisely how diplomatic immunity operates.
    1
  18.  @asktheetruscans9857  OK, if they're not subject the jurisdiction, they cannot be detained or arrested, as they have immunity. It's not a difficult concept to understand, if you stop listening to bullshitters lies.
    1
  19.  @ronbyers9912  yep, the diplomats dependents, like the diplomats are subject to their nation's jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction and hence, cannot be detained or arrested by any US authority.
    1
  20. Your belief is irrelevant, as the 14th amendment is quite clear. If they were not subject to our jurisdiction, they could never be detained or arrested.
    1