@Here_4_a_DayWould you mind giving him this for me?
"Blatantly unconstitutional"
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
Racist much?You know all about getting your ass handed to you, don't you Mr. Victim?
At least you're not a coward with this account. Victim, none-the-less, though.
LOL - Part of the issue at bar is "Does that part of the Constitution cover non-Americans specifically illegals".
Let the Supreme Court make the ultimate decision.
This is easy declare a national emergency and override the courts. If they don’t like it abolish them or arrest the activist judges that disagree. Need some big dick energy here.
Do most other countries not have birthright citizenship? Wasn’t that part of the constitution put in place at the end of slavery to allow for such individuals to become American citizens. I don’t think the founding fathers could have anticipated that our country would allow for illegal immigration.
SCOTUS (right) have no pricinples anymore. They like to say they are strict textist/originalist but only when it is convenienant for them. Several of them have perjured themselves in Congressional testimony that they would look at res judicata and stare Decicis
Last edited:
You just simply cannot admit anything Trump does is wrong. It is clear,y written in the 14th amendment, so there is no legal battle to be had, nor can Congress change it.
JFC Trump has broken you.
So's the 2nd Amendment yet the libs constantly try to misconstrue it and outright want it changed.
If Kissinger wrote anything other than "I, Henry Kissinger, am a war pig, a war criminal and a serial liar. If there's a Hell I deserve to burn there forever" it was a bunch of lies.
Bullshit… the 14A says if born in the USA you are a citizen…. Parents nationality, race or creed be damned.
Thank God the (UI graduated) Reagan appointed judge has the Constitutional sense to see thru the Trump bullshit and blather. However, Trump does have a “loyal” Supreme Court in place..and what the Constitution says really doesn’t mean much with 3 or 4 of those justices.
I don't know that this is bad faith. I do think it is designed to answer the question once and for all by putting it right on the lap of the court.
You know the phrase in question here of course. SCOTUS will define it in the context of today's question. My understanding, perhaps not correctly since I haven't done a bunch of reading on it yet, is that the prior case dealing with 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', involved two Chinese parents here LEGALLY but not US citizens.
We will get a definitive SCOTUS answer sooner than later.
If it is decided in favor of the Trump admin interpretation, you can expect an absolute meltdown by the libs.
I can't see why, in modern times, that we have read this the way we have. I don't really care as long as there is a thorough original intent discussion and a ruling drawn from that.
BUT, an argument can be made that being here illegally, in principle, shouldn't qualify one to have a child here and have it be automatically a citizen. The act that allowed the delivery, was at it's origin, an illegal one. Kind of a fruit of the poison tree sort of a thing.
But you are right, SCOTUS will determine it. Right or wrong. I don't think Justice Roberts will side with cons on this one. JMHO
Assuming Steven Miller is the architect of much of this stuff coming from the WH.
Guy is a damn weasel.
Well....maybe not but he doesnt need to. Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas. That's 5.
The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to be amended as our nation progressed. You know, like adding he 14th Amendment. Or, prohibiting alcohol, then going back a few years later to change that.
"A well regulated militia"...
Seems pretty clear to a lot of us.
I do not share your enthusiasm that some state AG won't jam this up to the Supreme Court in a year leaving us all anxious to see if John Roberts can sway ACB to join him in a 5-4 decision. As I understand it from the TV lawyers today the 14th was tested in the late 1800s, but survived legal challenges. Precedent doesn't mean what it used to for this court.
Seriously, why do you believe that non American's here illegally, give birth to children automatically citizens of the US?
You can say, per the constitution, per precedent etc but I am asking why as a thought exercise, they should be? What's the rationale?
No other notable western countries, aside from Canada, do this.
Not Germany, Italy, France, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Slovenia, England etc....
Interesting that most that do are in the Western Hemisphere. This seems to have more to do with attracting people historically to move to the 'new world' than anything else.
Brazil does, in the ‘80’s all of those were eligible for dual citizenship.
I think you’re missing something.
But the district courts all just hunky dory, eh counselor? Or is that only perhaps when they agree with you?
