|
alnilam posted:I agree that PR has generally had pretty bad governance, but that doesn't mean that their bizarre territory status doesn't make this harder for them. Most small economies who suffer from bad governance have the very important ability to negotiate bankruptcy and restructure their debt when their bad governance catches up to them. This also allows their creditors (if we take a charitable view of international banking here) to sort of undo their bad governance somewhat by demanding certain changes in exchange for the restructuring and further lending. But PR's hands are tied. They desperately want to declare bankruptcy, but they're not allowed to. This is why their territory status is hurting them. If they were a state, or independent, they could do this, but they can't. US states can't declare bankruptcy. There was a brief push to make this possible in general in response to Puerto Rico, but then sane policymakers realized that several much less sane (conservative, starve-the-beast) state governments that have been operating in a similar way to PR would use it as an escape hatch and by doing so almost instantly torpedo the US economy. Bankruptcy or, preferably, a major federal aid and restructuring influx from the federal government, can and should be done for PR- but it has to be the once-in-several-centuries exception, not the rule. edit: poking around a bit online, it looks like the conventional reading of the contracts clause of the Constitution also precludes state bankruptcy, but that that interpretation has never been adjudicated. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 15, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Yes, these seem pretty on the face of them super hosed up and wrong to the point where they should be overturned 8-0. A large part of why these became law is White Man's Burden claptrap. They also are in opposition to my reading of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Not really sure how you could read that from the 14th Amendment, or why you think it's wrong for congress to set citizenship rules for people not born inside the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
What I don't understand about PR is what happens when literally everyone just leaves. A Detroit in the Caribbean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What I don't understand about PR is what happens when literally everyone just leaves. A Detroit in the Caribbean. Don't worry, the gated communities on the coast will still get AmazonDrone(R) deliveries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not really sure how you could read that from the 14th Amendment, or why you think it's wrong for congress to set citizenship rules for people not born inside the United States. quote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [...] It's pretty clear if you consider territories controlled by the United States to be "in the United States", which is a natural reading, though possibly not correct. Not really sure how you couldn't see that. Maybe you could help us out with some actual reasoning instead of smug assertions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:It's pretty clear if you consider territories controlled by the United States to be "in the United States", which is a natural reading, though possibly not correct. Not really sure how you couldn't see that. Maybe you could help us out with some actual reasoning instead of smug assertions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why would we include areas that aren't states into the United States? Uh... there are some US citizens that are going to be very, very mad at you if you don't. And because they are still part of the USA, obviously. We've already included them "into the United States".
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
"The United States" is generally understood to refer to a political entity composed not only of states but other stuff and you have to pull some real semantic magic to assert otherwise. Since the District of Columbia isn't a state I guess it's not even part of the United States!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:It's pretty clear if you consider territories controlled by the United States to be "in the United States", which is a natural reading, though possibly not correct. Not really sure how you couldn't see that. Maybe you could help us out with some actual reasoning instead of smug assertions? Considering places not in the United States in the United States is not the natural reading of that at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Please help me understand by clarifying what you mean by "in the United States" because it seems to differ from conventional use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Considering places not in the United States in the United States is not the natural reading of that at all? Are you denying that territories are part of the United States, or just denying that things that are part of the United States are in the United States? Just to make sure we're clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you denying that territories are part of the United States, or just denying that things that are part of the United States are in the United States? Just to make sure we're clear. The US grants national status to anyone living within the United States and territories that it controls. The 14th only grants citizenship to areas that are formally incorporated into it. Right now that's strictly the 50 states and a small uninhabited atoll in the Pacific Ocean that used to be part of Hawaii. Any other grant of citizenship would have to be done under naturalization, and that's strictly an act of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:Please help me understand by clarifying what you mean by "in the United States" because it seems to differ from conventional use. No not really, territories of the United States are not in the United States, I've never heard anyone claim otherwise and I don't know what you're basing calling that a conventional use on, that's plainly not what the term means. GlyphGryph posted:Are you denying that territories are part of the United States, or just denying that things that are part of the United States are in the United States? Just to make sure we're clear. Territories are administered by the United States they are not in the United States, I'm not sure what definition you are using for "part of" or why you're trying to introduce a new word that has no relevance to quibble over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
uninterrupted fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:What about the people in D.C.? This theory has gaping loopholes in it. Ok, I forgot to list "Washington DC". It's the 50 states, Washington DC, and a small uninhabited atoll in the middle of the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
It really isn't a theory. That's the current state of law and jurisprudence. I linked the relevant statute of the US Code earlier. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-I 8 U.S. Code § 1408 posted:Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth: Note that Section 1401 is primarily concerned with de jure citizenship, and how that's handled. Sections 1402-1407 all basically grant citizenship to the organized territories of the US. (Of which American Samoa is formally not, in the Congressional sense) OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No not really, territories of the United States are not in the United States, I've never heard anyone claim otherwise and I don't know what you're basing calling that a conventional use on, that's plainly not what the term means. "In the United States" can be taken to mean "in the borders of the nation known as the United States", which Gyges was evidently basing his reading of the 14th on. Instead of explaining why that reading isn't correct you have decided to reinvent the English language. How do you define " in the United States" for the purposes of the 14th amendment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:"In the United States" can be taken to mean "in the borders of the nation known as the United States", which Gyges was evidently basing his reading of the 14th on. Instead of explaining why that reading isn't correct you have decided to reinvent the English language. How do you define " in the United States" for the purposes of the 14th amendment? The United States includes those territories incorporated into the United States. Of which there is exactly one at the moment and its uninhabited. This goes back to the insular cases from the early 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:"In the United States" can be taken to mean "in the borders of the nation known as the United States", which Gyges was evidently basing his reading of the 14th on. Instead of explaining why that reading isn't correct you have decided to reinvent the English language. How do you define " in the United States" for the purposes of the 14th amendment? American Samoa is not within the borders of the United States, it is an outlying possession administered by the United States. "In the United States" means within the borders of the 50 United states of America or territories that have otherwise been incorporated. I'm not reinventing English, this is what the term means, has always meant, and is a matter of absolutely zero controversy in statutory or case law. It also is the very direct plain meaning of the language in it's common usage and I've never in my life heard anyone try to use it otherwise. I fully believe that people commonly use it incorrectly as sloppy shorthand when they mean "in the jurisdiction of the United States" or "part of the federal government of the United States" but that's not what the words actually mean and sloppy incorrect terminology is not what we use to judge laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:American Samoa is not within the borders of the United States, it is an outlying possession administered by the United States. "In the United States" means within the borders of the 50 United states of America or territories that have otherwise been incorporated. I'm not reinventing English, this is what the term means, has always meant, and is a matter of absolutely zero controversy in statutory or case law. It also is the very direct plain meaning of the language in it's common usage and I've never in my life heard anyone try to use it otherwise. Why wouldn't people simply refer to it as "the incorporated United States"? I mean I understand the basis for your definition, but is the qualification of "incorporated" an accepted legal standard or simply your preference? I'm asking because I have no clue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:It's pretty clear if you consider territories controlled by the United States to be "in the United States", which is a natural reading, though possibly not correct. Not really sure how you couldn't see that. Maybe you could help us out with some actual reasoning instead of smug assertions? Territories controlled by the United States are not "in" the United States, they're just territory under its control. It may not make much sense from a modern standpoint, but rewind your brain a hundred-twenty years or so to the heyday of colonialism and imperialism and you should realize exactly why territory under US dominion isn't automatically "part of the United States" with the various legal privileges that brings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Kirtsaeeng is reversed unanimously, and instructs lower correspondence to reasonably consider the losing side's position in determining lawyers fees in copyright cases
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Kingdomware is a unanimous reversal of the Federal Circuit
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Kingdomware is a unanimous reversal of the Federal Circuit By Thomas so you know it's clear cut
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
UHS v. US is a unanimous reversal of the 1st circuit Not a good day for the lower circuits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:By Thomas so you know it's clear cut He wrote United Health Services as well which is probably a boon to consumers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Why wouldn't people simply refer to it as "the incorporated United States"? I mean I understand the basis for your definition, but is the qualification of "incorporated" an accepted legal standard or simply your preference? I'm asking because I have no clue. Because that would be redundant, being incorporated into something essentially means being made part of it, I only said that to avoid someone trying to be pedantic about DC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Universal Healthcare is a great one. UHC killed at least one or more of it's patients by prescribing medication while no one on staff was actually qualified or licensed to diagnose the mental health problems or prescribe the medications in the first place. They're going to get hosed now when it comes to actual judgement. The moral of the story is, do not ever file a claim with the government if you do not actually have the qualifications to perform the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Am I incorrect that it is because of the Insular Cases that unincorporated territories are not considered part of the United States, and further that the Insular Cases largely rest on racist as gently caress dumbshit reasoning? Without the Insular Cases it seems to me that the territories would be considered part of the United States and thus people born there citizens under the 14th amendment. Since the Insular Cases seem so onerous, that is why I was asking why there isn't an 8-0 vote to get rid of that rulling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Am I incorrect that it is because of the Insular Cases that unincorporated territories are not considered part of the United States, and further that the Insular Cases largely rest on racist as gently caress dumbshit reasoning? Without the Insular Cases it seems to me that the territories would be considered part of the United States and thus people born there citizens under the 14th amendment. Since the Insular Cases seem so onerous, that is why I was asking why there isn't an 8-0 vote to get rid of that rulling. US Constitution posted:The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Basically, the insular cases said that congress can do whatever it wants with territory belonging to the United States but not within any state. Hence the incorporation process, the insular cases said that congress can decide whether a territory is like a state or not. Its not quite as slam dunk as one might initially think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Basically, the insular cases said that congress can do whatever it wants with territory belonging to the United States but not within any state. Hence the incorporation process, the insular cases said that congress can decide whether a territory is like a state or not. Its not quite as slam dunk as one might initially think. Yeah, I think most laymen (like me) aren't familiar with the distinction of incorporation. It makes sense, it's just not obvious and not something you pick up from casual literature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, I think most laymen (like me) aren't familiar with the distinction of incorporation. It makes sense, it's just not obvious and not something you pick up from casual literature. It's best to think of it as the difference between annexation and cession. If someone ceded you something, you take control of it. If you annex something, you take control of it and bring it into your state. The Senate can accept cessions of territories as part of its powers regarding treaties, but actual annexation will also require consent of Congress as a whole and as such, the House needs to also pass a motion. It really even predates the Insular cases, but the Insular cases are where it was at the forefront because it involved ceded territories that Congress did not immediately annex
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:
What atoll is that? Midway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:What atoll is that? Midway? Palmyra. It was part of the Hawaii territory, but was not included as part of the State of Hawaii. Now, it's run by the Department of the Interior, basically as a wildlife refuge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
So this has probably been covered, but assuming Clinton wins and the senate Republicans all of a sudden want Garland because he's far more moderate than someone Clinton would pick with a supposed mandate, does Obama withdraw the nomination citing the same rationale as the pre-election GOP senate? Is there a graceful way to do that, or is he beyond giving a gently caress about looking graceful?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:So this has probably been covered, but assuming Clinton wins and the senate Republicans all of a sudden want Garland because he's far more moderate than someone Clinton would pick with a supposed mandate, does Obama withdraw the nomination citing the same rationale as the pre-election GOP senate? Is there a graceful way to do that, or is he beyond giving a gently caress about looking graceful? Maybe Obama genuinely thinks Garland would be a good justice? Why does everybody assume that isn't the case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:So this has probably been covered, but assuming Clinton wins and the senate Republicans all of a sudden want Garland because he's far more moderate than someone Clinton would pick with a supposed mandate, does Obama withdraw the nomination citing the same rationale as the pre-election GOP senate? Is there a graceful way to do that, or is he beyond giving a gently caress about looking graceful? No, if for no other reason than showbiz_liz posted:Maybe Obama genuinely thinks Garland would be a good justice? Why does everybody assume that isn't the case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Maybe Obama genuinely thinks Garland would be a good justice? Why does everybody assume that isn't the case? Because the issue isn't if he'd be a good justice the issue is he's old.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Which is because hes a compromise pick designed so that Republicans could have no complaints at all other than "gently caress you, Obama"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Maybe Obama genuinely thinks Garland would be a good justice? Why does everybody assume that isn't the case? I assume it to be the case because Obama has spent the last two years antagonizing and generally having a dont-give-a-gently caress attitude towards the GOP's obstruction so nominating a younger more leftist person would make more sense - however, nominating a moderate and still having the GOP stonewall makes for a much better election-year story. I mean at least theoretically, except the media totally forgot about this unprecedented obstruction in about 1 week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:10
|
|