You're quoting the subsections but the section 2 as a whole, at the top, says:
It is the policy of the United States that no executive department or agency shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship to, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship regarding, persons when neither parent of that person is a citizen and any of the following applies:
It's a boolean "and," so in order for those provisions you've quoted to apply, the person must also not have a citizen parent.
But if one of the parents has American citizenship, they would have the right to American citizenship through their parentage, and the executive order only purports to apply to children for whom neither parent has US citizenship.
It would need to be a pretty narrow set of circumstances, and it would still be unconstitutional if applied to a child for whom one of the two parents could have had a child with birthright citizenship.
You're wrong, because you're either lying or have been lied to about the voter ID measures.
The question has always been: if I don't have an ID, can I still vote? IDs make it much easier to prove eligibility to vote, but is there a backup plan, a safety valve, for people who don't have an ID on election day?
If you want to buy alcohol, there are legal ways to acquire alcohol without an ID, if you are actually of legal drinking age.
If you want to fly on an airplane, there are ways to get past TSA and get on an airplane without an ID. TSA only recently started charging a fee for this, but there's always been a safety valve for people who want to fly but don't have an ID on them. Otherwise, what would someone have to do if they were on vacation, lost their wallet, and wanted to come home?
Oh, and the actual proposal for the shopper card at the NYC grocery store won't actually require proof of identity or proof of residency. So if the proposed voter ID laws were going to be equally loose, I don't think there would be any opposition to a system by which a person who doesn't have an ID could get one that day, at the polling site, in order to vote that day.
Figure 3 has an interactive chart showing both stats (the traditional measure and the new metric under discussion), and visually shows the spread, by age, across all age groups. (If you're on a phone you can pull the chart up full screen to be able to see y axis lines.)
Some of the discussion around there is interesting, too:
The owner-occupancy rate for households headed by adults under age 35 was 37 percent in 2024. Using the HPOP, which accounts for co-residents and dorm dwellers, we find a substantially lower number: only 22 percent of adults under 35 own their homes.
Figure 6 gives state by state data and shows the actual spread between the two metrics for each state, so you can see big state differences, too.
The commonly reported statistic asks, what percentage of adults live in homes owned by a resident, rather than rent? That's been steady in the mid-60 percentages for decades.
This new paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis offers another statistic for consideration: the ratio of homeowners to the adult population.
The main categories of people who differ in this proposed methodology:
People who live in group home settings that do not ordinarily count as renters, like dorms, nursing homes, and prisons, are now included in the denominator (and not considered homeowners). Previously, these didn't count towards the ratio in either the numerator or denominator.
Adult family members of homeowners who do not pay rent (adult children, parents of an owner, etc.), or adult roommates paying for a room. This turns out to be about 13.9% of the population.
Most importantly, these are unevenly distributed by geographical region, age, other demographics. Not all of these are bad (nothing wrong with multi-generation living arrangements), but they can show trends across time or place, and pick up less noticeable trends in people's living situations more broadly.
I've been accused of being a centrist, despite basically being to the left of everyone in American politics, and I think it's because people tend to over-weight the economic left/right spectrum (or project other non-economic issues onto the left/right spectrum), and not place enough effort into thinking through:
Ideological purity versus pragmatic deal-making.
Actual governance skill, kinda a technocratic versus populist view.
When and where it's appropriate to break the law to accomplish goals, like the lawfu-to-chaotic alignment in the D&D memes.
None of that is left/right or centrist in itself, but my positions (pragmatic, technocratic, lawful) sometimes put me at odds with other voices on the left.
Other criteria that don't map onto left/right include authenticity, consistency/predictability, coherence across issues, and plain old network connections, and political effectiveness (influencing the public and other politicians to follow your lead on issues).
Mamdani is awesome because he exudes authenticity (like, I'm not a Knicks fan but he can give a great mayor's speech for his favorite team winning), gets things done (actual stuff around city governance, like snow shoveling), and seems to know how to get policy passed (working with Hochul to get some big ticket legislation on taxing the rich accomplished, even if it will contain some compromises). He is, in other words, an effective politician. We need more people like him scattered throughout different jurisdictions.
I will gladly support a coalition of centrists and leftists to move things to the left, especially if they can flank the current Republican party on plain old competence and honesty/fairness in governance.
I agree this whole controversy is attracting weird misinformation.
The state constitution gives the governor power to appoint replacements in the event of a vacancy.
The legislature passed a law in 2021 requiring the governor to choose an appointment from the list provided by the state party of the outgoing Senator's party.
Then, the legislature passed a law in 2024 prohibiting the governor from choosing a replacement at all, and requiring a special election as soon as possible, at least 56 days before the general election.
The governor has publicly stated his position that both laws are unconstitutional under the state constitution, and basically everyone believes that if McConnell's seat becomes vacant that he'll appoint a replacement as a Democrat.
McConnell's term expires at the end of this year, and the general election in November is already going to choose McConnell's full term replacement.
If both laws are unconstitutional: the fake deadline doesn't matter, because the governor can select a replacement without restrictions.
If only the 2024 law is unconstitutional (but the 2021 law is constitutional): hiding McConnell's death and delaying the vacancy is counterproductive for Republicans, because it just prevents the Republicans from filling McConnell's seat (where he's currently unable to vote) with a Republican who can vote.
If the 2024 law is constitutional: hiding McConnell's death and delaying the announcement doesn't do anything, because replacing a non-voting Senator with a vacancy doesn't change anything anyway, because the general election in November will determine who becomes Senator for the next term that starts on January 1.
Basically, the only way this date makes a difference is if it causes a special election to get the seat filled for the 3 months between September and December, and it's unclear which party would win that seat to basically tip the margin in the Senate up or down half a vote (and not enough to actually tip control of the Senate).
The timing of the Senate vacancy is a very low stakes issue, and doesn't clearly favor one party over the other.
I would be 100% in favor of an amendment that clearly spells out that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are limited to actual humans, and any corporation or other group of people are not entitled to any more inherent rights than the humans who make up the corporation are entitled to collectively.
How does that change the current law, though?
I'd be in favor of a rule that explains that organizing into associations doesn't change the rights of the individuals who form the association, but also that the association would only have rights that relate to the actual purpose of forming the association in the first place (whether it's a corporation, LLC, partnership, joint venture, other unincorporated associations).
So a church gets religious freedom. But a sandwich shop does not. A newspaper gets freedom of speech and may exercise editorial discretion on what goes on its pages. A telephone company does not, and cannot discriminate against the viewpoints expressed over its phone lines.
There are trickier issues: can a government ban halal slaughter, and would a Muslim-owned butcher shop be entitled to a religious exemption (if, assuming, individuals were granted that exemption)? I'd argue you have to look to the nature of the business or organization to determine whether that particular right applies to that organization, so the butcher shop can invoke the religion of the human butcher, and possibly even the human customers who want to buy halal meat.
But the framework makes sense to me, and is closely related to the principle of organizational standing, where something like a nonprofit association of apple growers can sue on behalf of apple grower rights, despite not being an organization that actually directly grows apples. That's how corporate rights should work: look to the reason for incorporating and the nature of the organization, and how it relates to the nature of the right at issue.
There's literal video footage of him standing around, bored, in the Oval Office, seemingly annoyed that he still has to be standing, while people tend to a guy who fainted a few feet away from him.
Projections to be fake profitable (while excluding stock based compensation as an expense), sure. Give me GAAP statements on an actual normal quarter (Q2 April-June, Q3 July-September), not predictions about a weird made up quarter ("June quarter" aka June-August) that hasn't even started yet, especially not one where they're renting 200MW of compute at a temporary discount for 2 months.
Even the leak is careful to explain that they don't expect to be profitable the rest of 2026, probably because they'll actually have to pay for all the compute they're using.
Yeah, the people bitching about the tax obligation are basically just angry they don't get to see their stocks grow tax free just because they happen to live somewhere else, and they try to get people on their side by misleading others about the way the US taxes citizens abroad.
A very important point is that the judge can't just reject the deal and let Alex Jones continue forward. The whole reason why the licensing deal is coming to fruition now (instead of in 2024 when he first lost control, or after all the appeals are exhausted) is because this middle ground became untenable: Alex Jones can't afford the studio's rent and the creditors are going to seize all the physical assets if they're not being actively used to run a profitable business to preserve the status quo.
If the status quo is no longer an option, the court will have to order that SOMEthing happen.
The licensing deal is for more than just the domain. It's like hundreds of squatter domains, too (including, hilariously, goblinlove dot com), and the trademarks.
And the reason why it's exactly that amount isn't about the cost of the domain. It's that the physical studio's rent is about $75k/month, and they need to keep that lease active long enough to buy the whole shebang once Alex Jones' appeals run out.
I still find dedicated legal reporting to be better than general reporting. And this is a complicated history touching on a lot of different areas of the law.
But the key fact here is that Alex Jones was allowed to keep control over the business assets while his appeals are pending, but has run out of money and cannot continue running his own business. At that point, the receiver overseeing things (where Alex Jones can run the business but can't transfer assets out or pay anything not directly related to running the business) saw that things had changed enough that he needed to keep the business assets valuable, and that Alex Jones himself couldn't.
So this licensing deal is a way to keep the assets valuable: keep paying rent on the studio itself, keep all the broadcasting and recording equipment under one roof, keep all the unexpired contracts.
If Alex Jones can't come up with a plan to actually pay the rent and keep all the stuff, the court is basically going to have no choice but to agree that there's no way to keep things as they are while the appeals wind through the system, and a temporary licensing agreement is the best option until the appeals go through.
Most of the reporting doesn't seem to appreciate that Jones' prospects of blocking this in the courts is dependent on a practical hurdle, not just a legal one: he can't afford to keep it. That's what's changed since December 2024 when The Onion's first attempt to buy this stuff was blocked (by another federal bankruptcy court, with a different judge than this state court judge overseeing the receiver).
The other commenter was trying to use that chart to tell us that cryptocurrencies are somehow better than fiat currencies as a store of value, despite their wild swings in value in the most stable one that isn't backed by fiat currency.
But if I told you your money was going to be worth half tomorrow, then half again the next every day for the next 16 weeks… You would think shit… Maybe there is a better way to do this.
I don't agree with the implicit assumption that the people who are bullied have to be actual nerds/geeks. People get bullied for being different, whatever that may be, and Elon strikes me as a real weirdo.
And of course that assumes a lack of charisma, which of course describes Elon. Charismatic weirdos can actually set trends to follow, whereas uncharismatic weirdos tend to become social pariahs.
For the most part, you're probably correct, but Elon Musk would've been bullied mercilessly in my high school, and it probably could've instilled some sense of self awareness if he had been.
I think the same is probably true of Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance.
You're quoting the subsections but the section 2 as a whole, at the top, says:
It's a boolean "and," so in order for those provisions you've quoted to apply, the person must also not have a citizen parent.
But if one of the parents has American citizenship, they would have the right to American citizenship through their parentage, and the executive order only purports to apply to children for whom neither parent has US citizenship.
It would need to be a pretty narrow set of circumstances, and it would still be unconstitutional if applied to a child for whom one of the two parents could have had a child with birthright citizenship.
You're wrong, because you're either lying or have been lied to about the voter ID measures.
The question has always been: if I don't have an ID, can I still vote? IDs make it much easier to prove eligibility to vote, but is there a backup plan, a safety valve, for people who don't have an ID on election day?
If you want to buy alcohol, there are legal ways to acquire alcohol without an ID, if you are actually of legal drinking age.
If you want to fly on an airplane, there are ways to get past TSA and get on an airplane without an ID. TSA only recently started charging a fee for this, but there's always been a safety valve for people who want to fly but don't have an ID on them. Otherwise, what would someone have to do if they were on vacation, lost their wallet, and wanted to come home?
Oh, and the actual proposal for the shopper card at the NYC grocery store won't actually require proof of identity or proof of residency. So if the proposed voter ID laws were going to be equally loose, I don't think there would be any opposition to a system by which a person who doesn't have an ID could get one that day, at the polling site, in order to vote that day.
It's worth reading the underlying paper, here.
Figure 3 has an interactive chart showing both stats (the traditional measure and the new metric under discussion), and visually shows the spread, by age, across all age groups. (If you're on a phone you can pull the chart up full screen to be able to see y axis lines.)
Some of the discussion around there is interesting, too:
Figure 6 gives state by state data and shows the actual spread between the two metrics for each state, so you can see big state differences, too.
The commonly reported statistic asks, what percentage of adults live in homes owned by a resident, rather than rent? That's been steady in the mid-60 percentages for decades.
This new paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis offers another statistic for consideration: the ratio of homeowners to the adult population.
The main categories of people who differ in this proposed methodology:
Most importantly, these are unevenly distributed by geographical region, age, other demographics. Not all of these are bad (nothing wrong with multi-generation living arrangements), but they can show trends across time or place, and pick up less noticeable trends in people's living situations more broadly.
I've been accused of being a centrist, despite basically being to the left of everyone in American politics, and I think it's because people tend to over-weight the economic left/right spectrum (or project other non-economic issues onto the left/right spectrum), and not place enough effort into thinking through:
None of that is left/right or centrist in itself, but my positions (pragmatic, technocratic, lawful) sometimes put me at odds with other voices on the left.
Other criteria that don't map onto left/right include authenticity, consistency/predictability, coherence across issues, and plain old network connections, and political effectiveness (influencing the public and other politicians to follow your lead on issues).
Mamdani is awesome because he exudes authenticity (like, I'm not a Knicks fan but he can give a great mayor's speech for his favorite team winning), gets things done (actual stuff around city governance, like snow shoveling), and seems to know how to get policy passed (working with Hochul to get some big ticket legislation on taxing the rich accomplished, even if it will contain some compromises). He is, in other words, an effective politician. We need more people like him scattered throughout different jurisdictions.
I will gladly support a coalition of centrists and leftists to move things to the left, especially if they can flank the current Republican party on plain old competence and honesty/fairness in governance.
I agree this whole controversy is attracting weird misinformation.
The state constitution gives the governor power to appoint replacements in the event of a vacancy.
The legislature passed a law in 2021 requiring the governor to choose an appointment from the list provided by the state party of the outgoing Senator's party.
Then, the legislature passed a law in 2024 prohibiting the governor from choosing a replacement at all, and requiring a special election as soon as possible, at least 56 days before the general election.
The governor has publicly stated his position that both laws are unconstitutional under the state constitution, and basically everyone believes that if McConnell's seat becomes vacant that he'll appoint a replacement as a Democrat.
McConnell's term expires at the end of this year, and the general election in November is already going to choose McConnell's full term replacement.
If both laws are unconstitutional: the fake deadline doesn't matter, because the governor can select a replacement without restrictions.
If only the 2024 law is unconstitutional (but the 2021 law is constitutional): hiding McConnell's death and delaying the vacancy is counterproductive for Republicans, because it just prevents the Republicans from filling McConnell's seat (where he's currently unable to vote) with a Republican who can vote.
If the 2024 law is constitutional: hiding McConnell's death and delaying the announcement doesn't do anything, because replacing a non-voting Senator with a vacancy doesn't change anything anyway, because the general election in November will determine who becomes Senator for the next term that starts on January 1.
Basically, the only way this date makes a difference is if it causes a special election to get the seat filled for the 3 months between September and December, and it's unclear which party would win that seat to basically tip the margin in the Senate up or down half a vote (and not enough to actually tip control of the Senate).
The timing of the Senate vacancy is a very low stakes issue, and doesn't clearly favor one party over the other.
How does that change the current law, though?
I'd be in favor of a rule that explains that organizing into associations doesn't change the rights of the individuals who form the association, but also that the association would only have rights that relate to the actual purpose of forming the association in the first place (whether it's a corporation, LLC, partnership, joint venture, other unincorporated associations).
So a church gets religious freedom. But a sandwich shop does not. A newspaper gets freedom of speech and may exercise editorial discretion on what goes on its pages. A telephone company does not, and cannot discriminate against the viewpoints expressed over its phone lines.
There are trickier issues: can a government ban halal slaughter, and would a Muslim-owned butcher shop be entitled to a religious exemption (if, assuming, individuals were granted that exemption)? I'd argue you have to look to the nature of the business or organization to determine whether that particular right applies to that organization, so the butcher shop can invoke the religion of the human butcher, and possibly even the human customers who want to buy halal meat.
But the framework makes sense to me, and is closely related to the principle of organizational standing, where something like a nonprofit association of apple growers can sue on behalf of apple grower rights, despite not being an organization that actually directly grows apples. That's how corporate rights should work: look to the reason for incorporating and the nature of the organization, and how it relates to the nature of the right at issue.
You should be able to do a little drugs at work.
There's literal video footage of him standing around, bored, in the Oval Office, seemingly annoyed that he still has to be standing, while people tend to a guy who fainted a few feet away from him.
Projections to be fake profitable (while excluding stock based compensation as an expense), sure. Give me GAAP statements on an actual normal quarter (Q2 April-June, Q3 July-September), not predictions about a weird made up quarter ("June quarter" aka June-August) that hasn't even started yet, especially not one where they're renting 200MW of compute at a temporary discount for 2 months.
Even the leak is careful to explain that they don't expect to be profitable the rest of 2026, probably because they'll actually have to pay for all the compute they're using.
In net worth? Sure, -$1000 is technically a 150% jump from -$400.
Yeah, the people bitching about the tax obligation are basically just angry they don't get to see their stocks grow tax free just because they happen to live somewhere else, and they try to get people on their side by misleading others about the way the US taxes citizens abroad.
A very important point is that the judge can't just reject the deal and let Alex Jones continue forward. The whole reason why the licensing deal is coming to fruition now (instead of in 2024 when he first lost control, or after all the appeals are exhausted) is because this middle ground became untenable: Alex Jones can't afford the studio's rent and the creditors are going to seize all the physical assets if they're not being actively used to run a profitable business to preserve the status quo.
If the status quo is no longer an option, the court will have to order that SOMEthing happen.
The licensing deal is for more than just the domain. It's like hundreds of squatter domains, too (including, hilariously, goblinlove dot com), and the trademarks.
And the reason why it's exactly that amount isn't about the cost of the domain. It's that the physical studio's rent is about $75k/month, and they need to keep that lease active long enough to buy the whole shebang once Alex Jones' appeals run out.
This is the best article I've found, and it's more recent than the NYT article you've posted:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/the-onions-infowars-takeover-follows-complicated-legal-journey
I still find dedicated legal reporting to be better than general reporting. And this is a complicated history touching on a lot of different areas of the law.
But the key fact here is that Alex Jones was allowed to keep control over the business assets while his appeals are pending, but has run out of money and cannot continue running his own business. At that point, the receiver overseeing things (where Alex Jones can run the business but can't transfer assets out or pay anything not directly related to running the business) saw that things had changed enough that he needed to keep the business assets valuable, and that Alex Jones himself couldn't.
So this licensing deal is a way to keep the assets valuable: keep paying rent on the studio itself, keep all the broadcasting and recording equipment under one roof, keep all the unexpired contracts.
If Alex Jones can't come up with a plan to actually pay the rent and keep all the stuff, the court is basically going to have no choice but to agree that there's no way to keep things as they are while the appeals wind through the system, and a temporary licensing agreement is the best option until the appeals go through.
Most of the reporting doesn't seem to appreciate that Jones' prospects of blocking this in the courts is dependent on a practical hurdle, not just a legal one: he can't afford to keep it. That's what's changed since December 2024 when The Onion's first attempt to buy this stuff was blocked (by another federal bankruptcy court, with a different judge than this state court judge overseeing the receiver).
The other commenter was trying to use that chart to tell us that cryptocurrencies are somehow better than fiat currencies as a store of value, despite their wild swings in value in the most stable one that isn't backed by fiat currency.
Doesn't that happen to most cryptocurrencies?
I don't agree with the implicit assumption that the people who are bullied have to be actual nerds/geeks. People get bullied for being different, whatever that may be, and Elon strikes me as a real weirdo.
And of course that assumes a lack of charisma, which of course describes Elon. Charismatic weirdos can actually set trends to follow, whereas uncharismatic weirdos tend to become social pariahs.
For the most part, you're probably correct, but Elon Musk would've been bullied mercilessly in my high school, and it probably could've instilled some sense of self awareness if he had been.
I think the same is probably true of Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance.