Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

archives said:
Not propaganda, fact, Jefferson openly admitted he was in error when he purchased Louisiana, did you skip history in high school
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for the dead, anchovies. Omniscience fallacy. You just hate the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
 
Bigdog said:
Jefferson was a strict constructionist. Cleary, you are rewriting history when you claim he dumped constructionism early on.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant. The Constitution speaks for itself. It is what it is, regardless of what a dead person may have said about it.
He's trying to speak for the dead to justify ignoring the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
 
archives said:
Hardly, being a strict constructionist he saw there existed no provision in the Constitution that a President could purchase land from a foreign nation (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-louisiana-purchase-jeffersons-constitutional-gamble). However he did recognize the value to the country and as all know, purchase the land. And this is not the only example on how he swayed from being a strict constructionist
Click to expand...
By the way, I'm always amused by libtards who argue we shouldn't be 'strict constructionist.' How should the level of liberties one might take be determined? Should we change the oath that all federal employees take including the SCJ's to say unless a really smart Justice thinks we should stray a bit from the text and intent? Maybe we could say adjustments should be made every....say 50 years to keep current. Just spitballing here, any ideas?


"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
 
archives said:
Laughable, after being proven wrong the “big chiwawa” wants to play a semantics game

Well, he’s wrong again, my actual comment was “even Jefferson dumped the strict constructionist view of the Constitution early,” meaning he was a strict constructionist but abandoned that position early

Two swings and misses in a row, want to try to strike out
Click to expand...
You can't speak for the dead, anchovies. You can't use Jefferson to justify ignoring the Constitution of the United States or any State constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
You don't get to speak for the dead, anchovies. Omniscience fallacy. You just hate the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
Click to expand...
Not, in Jefferson’s own words:

“ A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means…. It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of it’s very high interests are at stake.”
(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-37-02-0220)

Got anything else I can embarrass you on?
 
archives said:
Not, in Jefferson’s own words:

“ A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means…. It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of it’s very high interests are at stake.”
(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-37-02-0220)

Got anything else I can embarrass you on?
Click to expand...
Irrelevance fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

Jefferson isn't the Constitution, anchovies.
The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

You just want to ignore it and all State constitutions as well.
 
Tobytone said:
So, thanks for the tunnel story, it was needed to straighten me out. I bet you felt pretty good, thinking you showed me. All of your Libtard buddies were likely cheering too. LOL I'm a little bit impressed that it's not from one of your usual Libtard sources, so there's that, bravo.

You could have done what most idiots would do and said, (use a Stallone voice here) "What about tunnels, dude??" said the moron "Can't they just use those, dumbass?" I'm cracking up just imagining you saying that.

Just to break it down real simple for you (read it very s...l...o...w...l...y, so you can understand) The comment 'they'll just blow a hole in the wall,' for those who don't need everything explained like they're in second grade - it's suggesting that some future dumbass President, like the one who just waddled out of the WH, might do exactly what Train ridin' Biden did in his first days in office, reverse every policy and directive to open the border up again. It shouldn't be a concern, because who would purposely want to put so many citizens at risk? But we are talking about Libtard drones that seem to be hellbent on destroying America, and their simpletons supporters like you. So, it's sadly must be planned for the realities of idiots in power.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are real. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98y4n853vmo Tunnels have been found for generations. They also come from Mexico and other countries. You need to fence off the Pacific ocean and the Gulf of Trump. They come by boats. Most illegals fly in and stay illegally. Your fence better be high.
 
Into the Night said:
Irrelevance fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

Jefferson isn't the Constitution, anchovies.
The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

You just want to ignore it and all State constitutions as well.
Click to expand...
Now Jefferson is irrelevant, funny, and the only “the Constitution is the ONLY reference to the Constitution,” say what

So if “the constitution is the ONLY reference to the Constitution” how did we get any of the following since none of them are listed in the Constitution?
 
birthright.jpg
 
Nordberg said:
Yes, they are real. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98y4n853vmo Tunnels have been found for generations. They also come from Mexico and other countries. You need to fence off the Pacific ocean and the Gulf of Trump. They come by boats. Most illegals fly in and stay illegally. Your fence better be high.
Click to expand...
WOW, You're even thicker than I thought you were. I was trying to point out in my previous statement 'they would bust a hole in the fence' that it was more of a metaphor meaning, they would open the border up like they did four years ago. I didn't spell it out like I was speaking to a 2nd grader, my apologies for that. I don't deny they have, or could have, and use, or could use, some tunnels. Is that clear enough now?

Even so, let's look at you're non-existing thinking. Let's pretend that we lock in today's spending on border patrol. Now close your eyes and think of all the steps that Trump has taken already, (with more to come) dropping the numbers of illegals breaking into our sovereign country 95% in one week, do you think we'll have more or less time and resources to track down, detect, and eliminate tunnels?
 
archives said:
Now Jefferson is irrelevant, funny, and the only “the Constitution is the ONLY reference to the Constitution,” say what

So if “the constitution is the ONLY reference to the Constitution” how did we get any of the following since none of them are listed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Martial law is unconstitutional.
The fiat dollar (the current paper money) is unconstitutional.
The separation of church and state is not in the constitution.
Slavery is outlawed by the constitution.

Everything else is either in the constitution itself or is constitutional.
 
Into the Night said:
Martial law is unconstitutional.
The fiat dollar (the current paper money) is unconstitutional.
The separation of church and state is not in the constitution.
Slavery is outlawed by the constitution.

Everything else is either in the constitution itself or is constitutional.
Click to expand...
Wrong, and according to you your idiocy, how can something be “constitutional”if it is not in the Constitution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top