@ThePOTSPostman I dunno, it sounds like @arianek’s Sjogren’s dysautonomia could be fatal if allowed to progress untreated. You could also probably characterize some ME deaths as caused my dysautonomia though that’s probably not the best way to describe it.

@GsuGrinding Fair point about Harvard, etc. But most R1 Universities are state schools. This is going to have a huge impact on average kids going to college.

@hrmanomics @SeanCasten Ah, so your fall-back argument is it doesn’t matter if he ignores the constitution and other laws. Good talk.

@hrmanomics @SeanCasten What’s happening is going way beyond that. Trying to cut off spending allocated by Congress.

@hrmanomics @SeanCasten The power of the purse is the power on how it’s spent, to a large degree anyway.

@DavidCarl27 @SeanCasten Nope. He’s 100% correct.

@DOGERejectee @SeanCasten

@pearlsgrl @SeanCasten Yeah, so go to Congress with your concerns about how money is spent. Because the constitution gives Congress control of the money, not the president.

@hrmanomics @SeanCasten That’s not how this works. Congress decides how money is spent. That’s a basic constitutional concept.

@elisa_comer Neurosjogren’s here. It helped a lot with my neuropathic pain. Maybe some with fatigue.

@slaphappyhooker @kenzianidiot I was terrified to have mine removed but I got a cervical block and it helped a lot. Removal/replacement was way less painful and less traumatic

RT @AOC: This is a five alarm fire. The people elected Donald Trump to be President - not Elon Musk. Having an unelected billionaire, wit…

@bluebirdbistro do you plan to have a Valentine’s Day menu?

@StealthConfetti @ofthebambino @WCdispatch_ The position for the brief is this is settled law, see Wong Kim Ark.

@StealthConfetti @ofthebambino @WCdispatch_ How do you think it would work?

@StealthConfetti @ofthebambino @WCdispatch_ I’m not interested in debating the intent or what the policy should be. What you said about the law is wrong and I wanted to point that out. If you want the law to change, fine. Just know that it has to be changed to accomplish what you want.

@StealthConfetti @ofthebambino @WCdispatch_ I don’t know what the intent was. But I can see how the way it’s been interpreted could be the intent. This is a country built on immigration. It makes sense to make citizenship automatic for people born. It would be unmanageable to make every newly born person apply for it.

@StealthConfetti @ofthebambino @WCdispatch_ You’re just ignoring the fact that the meaning of the clause doesn’t change. Based on what the court has said about the meaning of the clause, the legal immigration status of the parents is irrelevant. This is what the court said.

@StealthConfetti @ofthebambino @WCdispatch_ That’s not really how legal precedent works. It determined the meaning of that clause. The meaning of the clause doesn’t change from case to case. If what you’re suggesting were true, there would be no precedent because there would always be some factual difference.

@4SakenGhost @MichaelSteele @AOC @RepJasmine I don’t think you understand what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. This is what SCOTUS said it means. Unless illegal aliens have conquered the U.S. and are occupying its territory (they aren’t), they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.