"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

[Into the Night]

Nor did anyone say that it was. But Marbury v Madison made it such that ONLY SCOTUS has the ability to determine if something is Constitutional or not.

SCOTUS has no such authority. You are discarding Article III. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

They affirmed Birthright Citizenship.

The can't.

Ergo Birthright Citizenship is in the Constitution and is real. And is the law of the land.

The term 'Birthright citizenship' appears nowhere in the Constitution, Gunky. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

 

[gmark77]

SCOTUS has no such authority. You are discarding Article III. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

The can't.

The term 'Birthright citizenship' appears nowhere in the Constitution, Gunky. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

Are you still blathering on about this?

Why?

You're wrong and you don't understand the topic.

Dismissed.

 

[Into the Night]

Not only ASSUMPTION of victory. Full on victory.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Denying your fallacy won't work, Gunky.

You are simply wrong.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

And it has been explained to you so simply that even a person with far more mental limitations than yours could understand it.

SCOTUS is not the Constitution, Gunky. Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[gmark77]

Assumption of victory fallacy. Denying your fallacy won't work, Gunky.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

SCOTUS is not the Constitution, Gunky. Mantra 1a. Lame.

Dismissed.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you still blathering on about this?

The Constitution isn't blather, Gunky.

Why?

You're wrong and you don't understand the topic.

You cannot just dismiss the Constitution or anyone else, Gunky. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Dismissed.

Termination fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. You cannot just dismiss anyone.

 

[Into the Night]

Dismissed.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Dismissed
Dismissed
Dismissed
Dismissed
Dismissed

Somebody hit Gunky. He seems to be stuck.

 

[FastLane]

Illegals are afforded the same Constitutional Protections you have.

End of story.

I have the constitutional right to live in the United States. They don't. End of story.

 

[FastLane]

No, unfortunately, I am not wrong. Birthright citizenship has been affirmed by SCOTUS.

Only for those with permanent domicile. Illegal Aliens don't have permanent domicile within the US.

 

[FastLane]

Not only ASSUMPTION of victory. Full on victory. You are simply wrong. And it has been explained to you so simply that even a person with far more mental limitations than yours could understand it.

The nuthunh defense isn't good enough around here nooby.

 

[Lionfish]

Illegals are afforded the same Constitutional Protections you have.

End of story.

Wrong

 

[FastLane]

Wrong

Yep he is wrong again.

 

[Lionfish]

Yep he is wrong again.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[FastLane]

Are you still blathering on about this?

Why?

You're wrong and you don't understand the topic.

Dismissed.

You have been thoroughly destroyed on this subject. It was fun watching you flounder.

 

[FastLane]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If it did he would be right more often

 

[gmark77]

feel free to rage against the Supreme Court

 

[FastLane]

feel free to rage against the Supreme Court

Why ? The SCOTUS has already ruled against birth right citizenship in the Elk v Wilkins case.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yep to permanent resident of the US

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

constitutioncenter.org

Illegal aliens don't have permanent domiciles in the US.

Perhaps you need to actually read Wong Kim Ark before you try to argue that someone living in the US for a short period of time doesn't have a permanent domicile in the US. Ark's parents went back to China. It was when he was denied entry after returning from visiting them that resulted in the ruling that all persons born in the US are granted US citizenship at birth.

The court rejected the argument that he couldn't be a citizen because his parents never gave up their allegiance to China.

This was the government's argument that the court rejected in deciding that birth in the US gave him citizenship. -
"Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city andcounty of San Francisco, State of California, United States ofAmerica, is not, under the laws of the State of California and ofthe United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of thesaid Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperorof China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person anda subject of the Emperor of China."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Why ? The SCOTUS has already ruled against birth right citizenship in the Elk v Wilkins case.

No. They did no such thing. Elk only applies to Indians born to a tribe.

 

[archives]

You don't have common sense, anchovies.

They are in the Constitution, anchovies. See the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments and Articles I and III.

SCOTUS has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution, anchovies. You are ignoring Article III again.

The only one bringing up Elvis or the Sasquatch is YOU, anchovies.

It was, anchovies.

Irrelevant. Pivot fallacy. Dictatorships still exist, anchovies.

You are not Google.

Wrong

Right to privacy is not in the Constitution

Wrong again

Metaphors for your idiocy

Wrong again

Never said I was