Not quite. If you use a Class A document, it establishes both identity and authorization to work in the United States. A Green Card is a Class A document, so it’s the only document you need.
Class A documents establish identity and authorization to work in US: US passport, Green Card, Foreign passport with I-551 stamp, Employment Authorization Document that contains photo ID.
Class B documents establish identity: State issued driver’s license, state issue ID, voter registration card, student ID, etc., etc.
Class C documents establish authorization to work in the United States: State, county, or municipal issued birth certificate, Department of Defense issued birth certificate, Social Security Card, employment authorized document issued by Dept. of Homeland Security, etc., etc.
Indeed. The “subject to the jurisdiction of” clause was intended to exclude diplomats and “Indians not taxed”, not the children of immigrants. I don’t see Trump winning a judicial battle claiming that he can round up brown people because they have diplomatic immunity.
The amendment that contains the insurrection clause is the same one that makes it illegal to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
It is incongruous to insist that Trump is subject to one part but not the other. Would you be happy if Ohio had decided Kamala Harris had committed insurrection by “not closing the border” or something and excluded her from the ballot?
Someone help me out here please.
Trump committed insurrection. I think that’s clear. How in the United States should that translate into disqualification from office. Impeachment and conviction sure if they are already in an impeachable office, but what about Congressmen or ordinary citizens?
It sounds like some of you want it to be self-executing like everyone knows. That may have worked if you took an oath to the CSA but what about now? Everyone has perfect knowledge and agrees including the insurrectionist? How would that work?
Someone steps up and says, “You committed insurrection and are disqualified from office.”? Who has the power to do that?
State courts can’t do it thanks to SCOTUS, so it would be a federal court. What is the mechanism for that? 18 USC 2383 does that AND as the penalty automatically disqualified the person from office. So if that crime is not adjudicated, then what federal law would?
I’ve also seen driver’s licenses marked “not valid for identification” as well as the above in my various jobs.
The gist is that such people have no recognized rights at all in the country so the government can do whatever it wants to them. I don’t personally agree with that, I hasten to add. I think it’s terrible and morally bankrupt, but it’s not anyone asks me about these things anyhow…
Define “due process.” Hint: it’s tricky. Mind you, Colorado settled the question of whether he was an insurrectionist according to a process (you might even call it due process) set out by state law and even held a judicial hearing on the matter (due process under the Constitution doesn’t necessarily even require the involvement of the judiciary).
And I must say again who utterly fascinated I am that someone who purports to identify as an anti-fascist seems to eager to trust that our neoliberal institutions will save us from a growing fascist movement. Are you sure you didn’t mean to put up an avatar that says “OBEY” instead?
“Save us”? Not necessarily, but they’re the best tools we have in our arsenal. A slow-moving bureaucracy and a legal system that takes forever to get anything done are our best bet at ensuring that Trump will be unable to make good on most of his insane promises.
The problem being that it’s not the state of Colorado’s role to decide that someone is guilty of a federal offense. I don’t like Trump either, but allowing states to decide on their own that someone is an insurrectionist without even holding a trial is a dangerous precedent that I don’t want Trump’s people to have the benefit of once they’re in power.
The may be what people interpret it to mean now but during the Wong Kim Ark case some felt it meant that you owed allegiance to a foreign power aka you were a foreign national.
The deeper issue is if the Constitution gives the states the power to run their elections, should they also be able to decide who is eligible under the Constitution or not? And yes, Colorado state law says anyone ineligible to the office they are running for cannot be on the ballot.
Which, in this case, consists of asking the question “Has this person been convicted of insurrection in a federal court?”. Attempting to declare them guilty of a federal crime absent such a conviction is an overreach of state power, and if allowed would likely lead to Republican-run states abusing the process to prohibit Democrats from running for office.
Of course! Thanks.