Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

moon said:
' All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. '

Simple.
Click to expand...
Arsecheese was too cowardly to respond to this, maybe you will ...

The legal issue is why were the words AND SUBJECT TO added. Why is this an additional requirement? Why isn't just being born here ... Enough!?

"Section 1.All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, "
 
Tobytone said:
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."
Click to expand...

Tobytone said:
im not sure I agree with eliiminating birthright citizenship.


Agreed and pointed out with the exemption of eliminating work visas. I have no problem with work visas all longs a real need is demonstrated and the rules are enforced with severe consequences for breaking any of the rules.


I get the concern, but I covered this in my previous comment, and I'm not so sure corporations aren't able to 'create' an underclass by simply exploiting a desperate need for employment in certain areas, for example. I don't think that will be a real concern when we are growing at the rate we are capable of.

I also get tired of hearing about evil corporations. The focus should be on government first, there is no case to be made that more fraud and destruction is caused by corporations than by 'good intentions' gone bad due to government spending and programs. This strategy is very old but sadly still fairly effective. People have been conditioned to point at big business and corporations for the ills of society in our great country. We all can decide to stop supporting corporations and big business, but have little choice, if any, to avoid or fight government lunacy.
Click to expand...
evil corporations is a real thing.

just as evil government is a real thing.

the most evil is when they work together in fascism.

:truestory:
 
Tobytone said:
No shit, do you think the SC just starts making decisions when they're bored? LOL. The problem didn't exist until recently. And don't throw the 1898 case at me again, I've addressed that, and one little inconvenient detail about that case was that the little feller's parents were here LEGALLY.

So, that detail, along with the fact that the court was full of activists who didn't know that racist policies were not part of the Constitution, should be noted. Birthright citizenship became a real problem in the '90s when we all started talking about it. Those with common sense and compassion for the innocent, vulnerable Mexicans who were being exploited by the Cartels, and still are, thought we should do something about it.

Trump just happens to be the first President with the balls to challenge the absurd, evil, and misguided interpretation of the Amendment. So, hopefully, this court will actually stick to the known intent of the Amendment and do the right thing.
Click to expand...
stateless underclass, indentured servitude, evil corporations.....

fascism, "supply side" corporate banker cocksucking.
 
Bigdog said:
Arsecheese was too cowardly to respond to this, maybe you will ...

The legal issue is why were the words AND SUBJECT TO added. Why is this an additional requirement? Why isn't just being born here ... Enough!?

"Section 1.All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, "
Click to expand...
Some officials do not appreciate the intelligence of others.

th
 
Bigdog said:
The founding fathers revolted against monarchy and massive gov't. Does that make the FF's ... to the right or left?
Click to expand...
The sign was not intended to be primarily political. It simply demonstrates the ' belt and braces ' mentality.

Here's another , non-political example , of a sigwriter addressing two people at once;

th
 
Can we just call the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment RE-EMPHASISE and move on ?

I'll accept that the Founding Fathers weren't all that bright. They didn't even have long trousers.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
Once again, Jefferson says he IS a strict constructionist. But is willing to go outside the Constitution if necessary for survival. This does not negate his interpretation of the Constitution; it confirms he is a strict constructionist.

Pleez, pleez, pay attention in your reading comprehension classes, junior. :palm:
Click to expand...
Ah “chiwawa,” it was the only time Jefferson did it, in fact, this set the precedent for him, and your view reminds me of the old cliche, “don’t do as I do, do as I say”
 
archives said:
Ah “chiwawa,” it was the only time Jefferson did it, in fact, this set the precedent for him, and your view reminds me of the old cliche, “don’t do as I do, do as I say”
Click to expand...
Jefferson is a guy who said Fuck You to the King with the world's most powerful military. Hang me if you dare.

There is no way you can relate to such a man. No wonder you can't comprehend his writings.
 
Last edited:
Tobytone said:
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."
Click to expand...
The same way Jefferson did it, “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, are of higher obligation.”
 
Bigdog said:
Jefferson is a guy who said Fuck You to the King with the world's most powerful military. Hang me if you dare.

There is no way you can relate to such a man. No wonder you can't comprehend his writings.
Click to expand...
But I, and everyone else, can read, and again, 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,” he was a strict constructionist till he wasn’t
 
archives said:
But I, and everyone else, can read, and again, 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,” he was a strict constructionist till he wasn’t
Click to expand...
Wrong. He was willing to disobey the law again as he had done against the monarchy , dingus. That does not negate his strict interpretation of the Constitution. :palm: It confirms it.
 
Bigdog said:
Wrong. He was willing to disobey the law again as he had done against the monarchy , dingus. That does not negate his strict interpretation of the Constitution. :palm: It confirms it.
Click to expand...
The law he is “disobeying” is the Constitution, and you are telling us he is a strict follower of the Constitution when he himself admits he is going against the Constitution? Love to see how one violating a law means he is supporting the law
 
I think that attempting to deform the Constitution into a tool of oppression is appalling .
Such offenders are unfit to pose as Americans.
 
archives said:
The law he is “disobeying” is the Constitution, and you are telling us he is a strict follower of the Constitution when he himself admits he is going against the Constitution? Love to see how one violating a law means he is supporting the law
Click to expand...
Trump has violated nothing in the Constitution.
If a law is unconstitutional, there is no reason to enforce or follow such a law.
 
Into the Night said:
Rights do not come from the Constitution or any other piece of paper, anchovies. You are ignoring the Constitution again.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see we are moving on now, changing the goal line, back into the rights are God given deflection. I strongly recommend you read Locke’s Two Treatises of Government before you go down that avenue

Rights are based upon reason, not desire
 
Into the Night said:
Trump has violated nothing in the Constitution.
If a law is unconstitutional, there is no reason to enforce or follow such a law.
Click to expand...
Oh, so I guess then Article 1, Sections 1 and 8, plus Article II, Section 1, have been removed

And, who decides if a law is unconstitutional, you’ve told us previously the SCOTUS can’t do it, so who can especially since you told us up above something can constitutional even if it is not in the Constitution

Time to go back to your Google glossary of fallacies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top