SCOTUS - interprets 14 th amendment exactly as written

[philip964]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... -v-hemani/

A Texas man.

Apparently this would weaken laws that got Hunter Biden in trouble.

Sure sounds like the Supreme Court understands "shall not be infringed".

[srothstein]

Interestingly, they made it a very limited decision. They specifically said they are not addressing the issues of addicts or people under the influence at the time. It can be argued that a drunkard was addressed because Hemani (sp?) stated he used pot every other day. That is habitual use, to me. If he was allowed, they would need to prove addiction (like Hunter's admission in his book) or under the influence at the time.

I am not sure about people who are under the influence. It might depend on the substance and its affects. Addicts should be allowed unless they are under the influence at the time. After all, smoking is an addiction that would not interfere (of course, it isn't an illegal drug yet - give the Dems time when they get back into power and it may be a different story).

[RoyGBiv]

If I have a cocktail after work every day, should I be prohibited from owning guns?

MJ isn't ethanol, sure. But both are intoxicating. The decision also mentioned examples such as taking your spouses sleeping meds, or taking someone elses Adderall to cram for an exam. From what I've read the Justices did a decent job distinguishing dangerous behavior from "socially frowned upon".

I don't smoke weed but I agree with the decision.

[Ruark]

MJ and guns makes me uncomfortable. Being high makes you fuzzy-headed, sort of like being drunk. For example, a mother was smoking MJ at a party and forgot her baby was in a bathtub upstairs. The baby drowned. I was at a party once (many decades ago!) and watched the hostess make a big pitcher of iced tea, then pour it all down the drain.

I wouldn't trust somebody "blasted" to remember to unload, keep finger off the trigger, etc.

[philip964]

Supreme Court interprets 14 amendment exactly as written. If your born here then your a citizen.

No, not what they might have meant, that it was just for former slaves. No, but times have changed interpretation for this Supreme Court.

Shall not be infringed.

[srothstein]

That is not how it is written. It included a phrase about subject to the jurisdiction of the US and many people (including the SCOTUS) seem to have not understood the prime historical example of how it was applied. No Indian was included, even if they were born here or on reservations because they were members of another nation. If it meant all people, why would we have needed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924?

[philip964]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026 ... -congress/

Trump suggests legislative action to remedy the issue.

Good, I'm glad he did not criticize them. They have been very good to him recently.

Yeah I noticed it did not include people from India.