Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

Into the Night said:
How?

Non-sequitur fallacy.

Go read the Constitution of the United States. Your answer is there.
Click to expand...
Violating both Articles, Congress controls the purse strings, and, the Executive enforces laws, not ignore them

The Constitution tells the reader what is not in the Constitution is not unconstitutional?

Bottom line, you don’t understand the very Constitution you are talking about
 
archives said:
Violating both Articles, Congress controls the purse strings, and, the Executive enforces laws, not ignore them
Click to expand...
What was violated, anchovies?
archives said:
The Constitution tells the reader what is not in the Constitution is not unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Word games won't work, anchovies. The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.
archives said:
Bottom line, you don’t understand the very Constitution you are talking about
Click to expand...
You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, anchovies.
You hate the Constitution. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND IT!
 
Nordberg said:
So you think those billionaires, you claim are doing that, means we should change the constitution? Rightys used to claim they loved the Constitution. Now they trash it. Changing the Constitution is a long process. A change bill has to be written in a conference. After approval, the House has to approve it by a 2/3rds vote. Then the Senate has to approve by 2/3rds. Then the states have to vote an approval. Three quarters of the states have to vote for it. Are you dumb enough to think that can happen?
Click to expand...
Hey dipshit, the Supreme Court will likely decide to hear arguments to determine if Trump's EO is constitutional or not. If they side with Trump's stance, that'll be that, unless the libtards can somehow muster the support to amend the Constitution, which would take a 2/3 vote in Congress and ratification by 38 states. Flip side, if they rule against Trump, the same applies. So, in the end, it all boils down to how the SC interprets the law with the new arguments on the table.
 
Tobytone said:
Hey dipshit, the Supreme Court will likely decide to hear arguments to determine if Trump's EO is constitutional or not. If they side with Trump's stance, that'll be that, unless the libtards can somehow muster the support to amend the Constitution, which would take a 2/3 vote in Congress and ratification by 38 states. Flip side, if they rule against Trump, the same applies. So, in the end, it all boils down to how the SC interprets the law with the new arguments on the table.
Click to expand...
Nope. It does not work that way. The Constitution is clear and the amendment is codified. There is a process for amendments. The Constitution is the law. Hey dumb shit, you should learn something sometime. So far you have resisted.
 
Nordberg said:
Nope. It does not work that way. The Constitution is clear and the amendment is codified. There is a process for amendments. The Constitution is the law. Hey dumb shit, you should learn something sometime. So far you have resisted.
Click to expand...
What a dipshit, your right, I guess the EO is dead in the water.
 
Tobytone said:
The absurd interpretation of the 14th amendment is finally being challenged. The left loves to argue that it's clear the following Amendment somehow says that birth rights citizenship is clearly stated in our Constitution.

Section 1.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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words in bold are the ones that the left argue somehow translate to those who enter America ILLEGALLY and drop an infant on our soil should automatically be citizens. Section 1 was to leave no ambiguity about the rights for blacks to become citizens. The democrat activist SC Libtards had sided with Sanford in the case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) in which the democrat appointed Chief Justice Roger B. Taney spewed typical drone drivel:
  1. That African Americans, free or enslaved, were not and could not be citizens of the United States under the Constitution, which meant they had no rights that white men were bound to respect.
  2. That the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories, was unconstitutional.
Republicans fighting racist policies didn't just start a few years ago. This also proves that the Supreme Court always fails America when it deviates from the true meaning of our brilliant Constitution. It's amazing how many things change yet stay the same.

I also love that last sentence, do the EPA rules and restrictions constitute due process? I don't think so, I'd like someone explain how it does. If the zealots with un-elected powers can and do make ridiculous rules that have severe impacts on ones private property rights, what real recourse does that property owners have? That's a bit off subject at the moment other than it points out how convoluted Libtard thinking is.
Click to expand...
It would only end with a constitutional amendment.

If you can end birthright citizenship without an amendment, you can ban gun ownership.
 
Nordberg said:
Compare the power of an EO against a Constitutional Amendment. Even if that exercise is beyond you, the Supremes will understand it. You are profoundly and proudly ignorant.
Click to expand...
OK Homie, I can't help you any further, perhaps time passing will bring the obvious to the forefront of your simpleton mind, but I doubt it.
 
Tobytone said:
the Supreme Court will likely decide to hear arguments to determine if Trump's EO is constitutional or not.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. They will probably let a lower court hear it, and let the lower courts injunction against it stand. There is no need for them to get involved.

Tobytone said:
So, in the end, it all boils down to how the SC interprets the law with the new arguments on the table.
Click to expand...
Not exactly "new"; it has been laughed out of court every time it was tried.
 
Walt said:
I doubt it. They will probably let a lower court hear it, and let the lower courts injunction against it stand. There is no need for them to get involved.


Not exactly "new"; it has been laughed out of court every time it was tried.
Click to expand...
Well that's certainly possible, but time will tell, as I have repeatedly said. Some drones think it would be impossible.
 
FastLane said:
Why did Native Americans need the Snyder act in 1924 to become American citizens even though they were born in the US.
Click to expand...
Native Americans were seen as sort of foreigners in the 1800's. They were expected to have their own government, and were not allowed to be punished under our laws. The US Government would make treaties with them, like they were foreign countries.

But they were also considered native to America, so they were seen as not foreign. They were allowed to freely pass over borders. In fact, some tribes still have an absolute right to cross over borders. That is a right that even US Citizens do not have.

In the 1900's they started to push the idea of "killing the Indian to save the man." It was brutal, but not as brutal as it sounds. It involved turning Native Americans into just Americans. Their cultures were supposed to be destroyed, and they would just be like anyone else.

With that, the government started enforcing laws against them, trying to get rid of the reservations, but also giving them citizenship rights... Sadly usually not allowing them to vote or have many other citizenship rights. This was still "Separate But Equal" America where racism was the norm.
 
Tobytone said:
Well that's certainly possible, but time will tell, as I have repeatedly said. Some drones think it would be impossible.
Click to expand...
There would be a major problem. Without jurisdiction, you cannot convict criminals, and you cannot restrict people from crossing the border.

Ever hear of Peter Gatien? Gatien was a Canadian who owned nightclubs in the USA. He was arrested for a whole series of drug distribution charges, but was finally only plead guilty to felony tax evasion. The prosecutors figured that a felony conviction would bar him for life from the USA.

They forgot that the non jurisdiction rights of some Native American tribes were enshrined in treaty. There is legally no way to bar Gatien from the USA because he is not subject to our border's jurisdiction. He is a convicted felon who has an absolute right to cross the border any time he wants. Technically, he does not even need a passport to do that.

Peter Gatien - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top