One big step towards dictatorship

[Bulldogs1974]

Trump is trying to do away with birthright citizenship. Instead of asking the Supreme Court to give him the go ahead ( which is scary enough) he’s asking them to stop federal judges from ruling an unconstitutional act being unconstitutional. We’re in deep trouble link.

 

[Tom Paris]

We’re not a dictatorship according to our both sides clowns.

 

[NorthEndzoneCrew]

Donald Trump alone can fix America. It’s clear America trusts our great president!! If he believes it is constitutional, than it obviously is!! As he would never do anything unconstitutional!

 

[lucas80]

Trump is trying to do away with birthright citizenship. Instead of asking the Supreme Court to give him the go ahead ( which is scary enough) he’s asking them to stop federal judges from ruling an unconstitutional act being unconstitutional. We’re in deep trouble link.

It's getting real now. It isn't just non whites, non Christians and trans citizens.

 

[Hans81]

Trump is trying to do away with birthright citizenship. Instead of asking the Supreme Court to give him the go ahead ( which is scary enough) he’s asking them to stop federal judges from ruling an unconstitutional act being unconstitutional. We’re in deep trouble link.

You serious Clark? 🤔

 

[Chishawk1425]

Trump is trying to do away with birthright citizenship. Instead of asking the Supreme Court to give him the go ahead ( which is scary enough) he’s asking them to stop federal judges from ruling an unconstitutional act being unconstitutional. We’re in deep trouble link.

MAGA is Taliban
Taliban is MAGA

We get it yet?!

 

[Bulldogs1974]

It's getting real now. It isn't just non whites, non Christians and trans citizens.

This isn’t about birthright citizenship this is about a person the Supreme Court said was incapable of crime now circumventing the constitution.
This is very very dangerous. The courts were a backstop to illegal conduct if the Supreme Court removes that check what do we have left.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

For gods sake my father in law railed that Obama was destroying the constitution by being a foreigner. Now he and other magats gleefully watch an actual flamethrower aimed at our system of government and constitution.

 

[KFsdisciple]

For gods sake my father in law railed that Obama was destroying the constitution by being a foreigner. Now he and other magats gleefully watch an actual flamethrower aimed at our system of government and constitution.

Good times and great oldies! Only on WTRMP that’s 104.7 on your FM radio dial!

 

[jneffer]

For gods sake my father in law railed that Obama was destroying the constitution by being a foreigner. Now he and other magats gleefully watch an actual flamethrower aimed at our system of government and constitution.

years ago...i saw this one crazy guy on tv actually say he had investigators in hawaii that found evidence and he was about to reveal it everyone

he was completely lying of course...

 

[TarponSpringsNole]

 

[Scruddy]

Lol the left is seething because they don't know how birthright citizenship was actually designed to work. Be prepared for scotus to agree that anchor babies aren't included.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Lol the left is seething because they don't know how birthright citizenship was actually designed to work. Be prepared for scotus to agree that anchor babies aren't included.

Wasn't it about ensuring all the rights afforded to every actual citizen following the end of slavery? It was never meant to mean come here pop a baby from your va-j-j and boom you have a US citizen...

 

[Scruddy]

Wasn't it about ensuring all the rights afforded to every actual citizen following the end of slavery? It was never meant to mean come here pop a baby from your va-j-j and boom you have a US citizen...

Absolutely correct, but the far left loves illegal immigration far too much to accept that reality.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Absolutely correct, but the far left loves illegal immigration far too much to accept that reality.

explains why all the libs on this board are housing and caring for families of illegals... they like the cheap labor and in-home authentic mexican food. 😂

 

[Scruddy]

explains why all the libs on this board are housing and caring for families of illegals... they like the cheap labor and in-home authentic mexican food. 😂

Who will pick our crops though!?!?

 

[The-Dude-Abides]

Absolutely correct, but the far left loves illegal immigration far too much to accept that reality.

Yes, all those radical leftists on the Supreme Court in 1898. Their legal acumen falls woefully short of great minds like KFsdisciple and Scruddy. I recommend actually reading the opinion. It's a long one, but you two geniuses should make quick work of it.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

 

[jneffer]

i see our resident constitutional scholars are active this morning

 

[KFsdisciple]

i see our resident constitutional scholars are active this morning

Should we need "constitutional scholars?" It's all there in black and white. Pretty simple. No interpretation required. The words in the amendment say "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it's RIGHT THERE.

It's why a diplomat from another country can have a baby born here, but said baby would still be a citizen of the country from which they represent. Diplomats are here under the jurisdiction of THEIR country not ours.

This clause reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

The concepts of state and national citizenship were already mentioned in the original U.S. Constitution adopted in 1789, but the details were unclear. Prior to the Civil War, only some persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, according to the various applicable state and federal laws and court decisions.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.[2][3]

 

[KFsdisciple]

Yes, all those radical leftists on the Supreme Court in 1898. Their legal acumen falls woefully short of great minds like KFsdisciple and Scruddy. I recommend actually reading the opinion. It's a long one, but you two geniuses should make quick work of it.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

see my post in response to Jocksniffer...it's all there for you.

Thanks for playing What's In Our Constitution?

Here's your prize, the take home version of the game!

US Constitution < Link

 

[RileyHawk]

Wasn't it about ensuring all the rights afforded to every actual citizen following the end of slavery? It was never meant to mean come here pop a baby from your va-j-j and boom you have a US citizen...

You mean like the 2A was never meant to allow people to carry assault weapons?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[RileyHawk]

Should we need "constitutional scholars?" It's all there in black and white. Pretty simple. No interpretation required. The words in the amendment say "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it's RIGHT THERE.

It's why a diplomat from another country can have a baby born here, but said baby would still be a citizen of the country from which they represent. Diplomats are here under the jurisdiction of THEIR country not ours.

This clause reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

The concepts of state and national citizenship were already mentioned in the original U.S. Constitution adopted in 1789, but the details were unclear. Prior to the Civil War, only some persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, according to the various applicable state and federal laws and court decisions.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.[2][3]

So you're saying immigrants aren't required to follow US laws. That should go over great.

You're a shill. And a bad one.

 

[KFsdisciple]

You mean like the 2A was never meant to allow people to carry assault weapons?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

well, show me where it says "assault weapons" in the 2A, because I see "shall not be infringed." in there...

And here's your version of the take home game "What's Actually In The Constitution?"

US Constitution < Link

 

[lucas80]

This isn’t about birthright citizenship this is about a person the Supreme Court said was incapable of crime now circumventing the constitution.
This is very very dangerous. The courts were a backstop to illegal conduct if the Supreme Court removes that check what do we have left.

Yeah? If only some people had warned us this was where we were headed. Trump promised this. The SCOTUS isn’t even a backstop because they created a king, and Trump is now showing a willingness to ignore the courts.

 

[KFsdisciple]

So you're saying immigrants aren't required to follow US laws. That should go over great.

You're a shill. And a bad one.

Well, if they're here undocumented they aren't following the law anyway? Nice self own. Dumbass.

 

[jneffer]

Should we need "constitutional scholars?" It's all there in black and white. Pretty simple. No interpretation required. The words in the amendment say "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it's RIGHT THERE.

It's why a diplomat from another country can have a baby born here, but said baby would still be a citizen of the country from which they represent. Diplomats are here under the jurisdiction of THEIR country not ours.

This clause reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

The concepts of state and national citizenship were already mentioned in the original U.S. Constitution adopted in 1789, but the details were unclear. Prior to the Civil War, only some persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, according to the various applicable state and federal laws and court decisions.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.[2][3]

the answer to your question is found beyond the first section of the wikipedia article this is from

just keep reading

 

[RileyHawk]

well, show me where it says "assault weapons" in the 2A, because I see "shall not be infringed." in there...

And here's your version of the take home game "What's Actually In The Constitution?"

US Constitution < Link

Show me where it says "immigrant babies" dumbass.

 

[Scruddy]

You mean like the 2A was never meant to allow people to carry assault weapons?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Link to the word assault weapon even being mentioned in the 2A?

 

[KFsdisciple]

Show me where it says "immigrant babies" dumbass.

They're not immigrants (That implies they went through the correct process) they're illegals have no rights under the US constitution other than to GTFO

 

[RileyHawk]

Well, if they're here undocumented they aren't following the law anyway? Nice self own. Dumbass.

They are still subject to the laws. Your position is that they don't have to, like a diplomat. Not to mention this would apply to those here legally as well, shithead.

 

[RileyHawk]

Link to the word assault weapon even being mentioned in the 2A?

Link to immigrant babies in the law regarding birthright.

It's the whole point. SMFH

 

[Scruddy]

They are still subject to the laws. Your position is that they don't have to, like a diplomat. Not to mention this would apply to those here legally as well, shithead.

I'm afraid the concept he mentioned went soaring over your head, comrade.

 

[KFsdisciple]

They are still subject to the laws. Your position is that they don't have to, like a diplomat. Not to mention this would apply to those here legally as well, shithead.

Take the L... it's all you have left. You can try to do it gracefully, but we all know that's not you.

 

[Scruddy]

Link to immigrant babies in the law regarding birthright.

It's the whole point. SMFH

That was literally already linked to you. You didn't understand it and that's not my fault or kf's.

Now link me your claim about assault weapons and the 2A plx

 

[RileyHawk]

They're not immigrants (That implies they went through the correct process) they're illegals have no rights under the US constitution other than to GTFO

They are. And many are here legally.

GTFO is right - but it's for your hypocrisy.

 

[RileyHawk]

Take the L... it's all you have left. You can try to do it gracefully, but we all know that's not you.

After kicking your ass once again? BWAAAAHAHAHAHA

 

[Scruddy]

Take the L... it's all you have left. You can try to do it gracefully, but we all know that's not you.

Despite having it explained to him at an elementary level he is still unable to grasp the concept. Somehow he will still be floored when the obvious supreme court ruling comes down confirming trump is correct I predict the left will then start talking endlessly about how invalid trump's supreme court is and that they should just ignore the decision.

 

[RileyHawk]

That was literally already linked to you. You didn't understand it and that's not my fault or kf's.

Now link me your claim about assault weapons and the 2A plx

It wasn't. You're simply too stupid to comprehend.

 

[Scruddy]

It wasn't. You're simply too stupid to comprehend.

So no link to the second ammendment then? You were wrong on that too, huh?

 

[KFsdisciple]

They are. And many are here legally.

GTFO is right - but it's for your hypocrisy.

Trump supporters aren't in favor of deporting LEGAL US Citizens. You know this... But you're trying to reframe the argument because you know you've lost on The Constitution and Common Sense so now you're just making stuff up... Adam Schiff is that you?