The peace agreement, was that Egypt will keep the Suez Canal safe (of course, along with collecting the bribe). Clearly, Egypt failed; and it is an international issue. What happens when you offer something, and don’t do it? (Same with arms flowing through the Sinai to damage your ‘treaty’ partner, but we are talking major waterways here.)

@AlanLevinovitz @tedfrank Absolutely quite central. Taking into account that the smart people today have read more books than the previous generations combined, your thesis seems odd. So you now want me to read the ONE book that has the key? And you find nothing wrong with this line of reasoning?

@AlanLevinovitz @tedfrank Your closing argument is that, in 2025, people haven’t read enough? Really?

@JewishWarrior13 The first Jewish president. “We”. His care for the hostages is truly something. G-d bless him!

RT @hrdevrythng:

RT @tedfrank: Very bad sign when this is in a DC Bar report about whether to adopt a rule punishing lawyers for speech.

@JewishWarrior13 Did not fail. This was version 2. Version 1, which gave the president authority in 2020, is still good law.

@signulll The value for primary sources just goes up. Those still need to be indexed. And it is a ton of information.

@wil_da_beast630 If we are being simplistic: The for-profit motive is because the medicine works; And what they work for, primarily and in low deses, is better sleep.

Felix Frankfurter: "The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment. Such a sentiment is fostered by all those agencies of the mind and spirit which may serve to gather up the traditions of a people, transmit them from generation to generation, and thereby create that continuity of a treasured common life which constitutes a civilization. "We live by symbols." The flag is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences, however large, within the framework of the Constitution." Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)

@njh2005 @AmySwearer "No one was illegally domiciled at the time." No one? Really? This statement can't be right at all.

@Philip_Huff Thank you. This caught my attention (as I was trying to frame the issue in 'foreign income' tax powers): "full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens generally are subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction..."

In a statement, ICC claims that US sanctions on the "Bureau" governing body will “severely hamper ongoing investigations.” “The Bureau regrets any attempts to undermine the Court’s independence, integrity and impartiality." Listen buddy, you may have been a bunch of things; but you're no independent court; you are no sovereign. You just told me you got your power from a statute? So at best ICC, you are a statue, with pigeons.

@richardb121 @jamespthomas92 @meksikanpijja @cremieuxrecueil @tszzl Sir, we are at the 14th Amendment Wendy's, not at the Second Amend. Burger King :)

Yes. But they didn't have the quick transportation that we have. Nor did they even have the 'jurisdiction' and border control that the US has now. Simple facts were different. The low volume meant an easy and fast rule (with a complex enough modifier) was enough. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. But if (illegal) aliens are subject to US jurisdiction, I think we ought to be able to tax their foreign income and holdings, anywhere, and all times thereafter (and back-taxes).

Easy Case: A green card holder has 10 Billion of Real estate income in Thailand. (He is Thai). US can tax it. Tourist: A visa holder has 10 Billion of Real estate income in Thailand. (He is Thai). US can NOT tax foreign income. They can tax the income generated in New York, and seize their person true. But, they are not a subject, such that they are 'subject to US jurisdiction', or else why can't US tax them? Illegal Migrant: [Example above; they are foreign billionaires!] Can the US tax all revenue anywhere? You said no. So now a person can live in the US for 50 years, and not pay taxes that a US citizen needs to pay? Seems discriminatory. Want to add a note here. The word 'jurisdiction' is easily top five most complex words in the legal dictionary. It is subject (pun intended) of hard and complex rules. Anyone who says they understand 'jurisdiction' is a fool.

Example: If you’re a US citizen, the US can tax you anywhere. An Argentinian say jumps the fence. Can the US now tax them everywhere, since they are subject to US jurisdiction? Keep in mind, that jurisdiction is not just person and sovereign. But sovereign, person and property, and another sovereign.