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

Dachshund said:
An Amicus Brief , brief from the Claremont Instute" was recently filed with the SCOTUS.. The brief was largely written by the eminent legal Eagle - Dr John Eastman., and it urges the Supreme Court to do any with "Birthright citizenship as it currently stands.

Eastmen has put together a devastating legal argument against "Birthright Citizenship that is 100% watertight.

The ass-hole, activist liberal Judges blocked Trump's Executive Order ending "Birthright Citizenship" have been exposed as having no real understanding of the 14th Amendment

. They have all just been shat on from a very great (legal )height, and soon they will be totally "TRUMPED" ( i.e. when the President's order to abolish the "Birthright Citizenship FRAUD becomes a long overdue reality).

So I've just got one thing to say to all the leftist, liberal, socialist, Woke neo-Marxist, tiny-penis DUMMYCRATS on the forum, and that's...SUCK IT UP, LOSERS - SUCK IT UP !!

Dachshund - the Magnificent MAGA Hound

Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Click to expand...
Amazing how an (alleged) neo-nazi dog from a UK country makes declarations regarding a case THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN PUT ON THE SCOTUS DOCKET AS TO WHEN IT WILL BE ADDRESSED!

Once again, the question is why is our resident nazi weiner dog SO obsessed with authoritarian/fascist political agendas in America?
 
martin said:
John Eastman, the eminent disbarred lawyer and accused felon.

There is just one way "birthright citizenship" will fall out of The Constitution and that is by the Court making the Amendment mean something it does not say.
Click to expand...
What do you expect from lame ass wanna-be nazi propagandists? They'll parrot any BS from their like minded ilk until someone takes it seriously.

Between the slew of "evangelicals" like Spkr. Johnson or the Jan. 6th yahoos and their supporters or the neo-nazi's/white supremacist marching in the streets or the racist POS throwing in money to a bigoted Karen who called a 5 year old a nigger because he took something out of her stroller (details lacking), this country is in serious trouble ... mainly because the aforementioned fools are being fleeced and screwed over by the very people they cheer and elect to power (Trump, Musk, Johnson, Greene, Bobert, Noem, etc.).

God indeed bless America, because we're going to need all the help we can get.
 
Phantasmal said:
No, this Constitutional right has served our country well.
I have no interest in what Eastman claims.

It seems pretty clear to me

“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”
Click to expand...
It stopped serving our country well as transportation and communication advanced. About 25-30 years ago.
 
Damocles said:
The Constitution: The contract between the states that created the Federal Government. AKA the contract that lawyers and judges pretend is not a contract, because if contract law applied, then the original intent would matter. If original intent mattered nobody could say it was a "living document"... So.
Click to expand...
Not sensible.

Principles of contract law do apply; the original intent applies, namely that The Constitution will be adapted in accordance with its basic principles to the changed circumstances bound to occur in a new and expanding country. So it was made a "living document", and still is.
 
martin said:
Not sensible.

Principles of contract law do apply; the original intent applies, namely that The Constitution will be adapted in accordance with its basic principles to the changed circumstances bound to occur in a new and expanding country. So it was made a "living document", and still is.
Click to expand...
It is a contract, and the principles of contract law do apply. There is even a clause in the contract to change the contract through the amendment process. It is not a "living document" if it were there would be no need for an amendment process to be included in the contract.
 
Damocles said:
It is a contract, and the principles of contract law do apply. There is even a clause in the contract to change the contract through the amendment process. It is not a "living document" if it were there would be no need for an amendment process to be included in the contract.
Click to expand...
The amendment process helps make it a "living document", just as the interpretative process makes it a living document.
 
martin said:
The amendment process helps make it a "living document", just as the interpretative process makes it a living document.
Click to expand...
The amendment process is an article of the contract, it doesn't make it living it just makes it so that the parties of the first part (the states) can get together and amend the contract. And the point is "the interpretive process" isn't something that should be, because it is a contract. It is literally the contract between the states that created the Federal government, it defines it, limits its power, and allows for additional parties to be included in the contract and for changes to the contract after following the contracted process...

It is a contract, and should be treated as such. That we have so many idiots saying it is a "living document" to be "interpreted" into whatever form they feel good about is a major problem. It is absolutely not what the founders created. We know this because the founders who wrote it told us all about it, publicly...
 
Damocles said:
The amendment process is an article of the contract, it doesn't make it living it just makes it so that the parties of the first part (the states) can get together and amend the contract. And the point is "the interpretive process" isn't something that should be, because it is a contract. It is literally the contract between the states that created the Federal government, it defines it, limits its power, and allows for additional parties to be included in the contract and for changes to the contract after following the contracted process...

It is a contract, and should be treated as such. That we have so many idiots saying it is a "living document" to be "interpreted" into whatever form they feel good about is a major problem. It is absolutely not what the founders created. We know this because the founders who wrote it told us all about it, publicly...
Click to expand...
Idiots who misinterpret what is meant by "living document" don't matter. The many SC decisions and amendments over the years that have molded Constitutional law into what is today compared to what it was in the beginning are what scholars mean by "living document". You should take your criticism up with them.
 
Last edited:
martin said:
Not sensible.

Principles of contract law do apply; the original intent applies, namely that The Constitution will be adapted in accordance with its basic principles to the changed circumstances bound to occur in a new and expanding country. So it was made a "living document", and still is.
Click to expand...
No, you cannot justify just changing the Constitution on a whim, Marty.
 
Dachshund said:
An Amicus Brief , brief from the Claremont Instute" was recently filed with the SCOTUS.. The brief was largely written by the eminent legal Eagle - Dr John Eastman., and it urges the Supreme Court to do any with "Birthright citizenship as it currently stands.

Eastmen has put together a devastating legal argument against "Birthright Citizenship that is 100% watertight.

The ass-hole, activist liberal Judges blocked Trump's Executive Order ending "Birthright Citizenship" have been exposed as having no real understanding of the 14th Amendment

. They have all just been shat on from a very great (legal )height, and soon they will be totally "TRUMPED" ( i.e. when the President's order to abolish the "Birthright Citizenship FRAUD becomes a long overdue reality).

So I've just got one thing to say to all the leftist, liberal, socialist, Woke neo-Marxist, tiny-penis DUMMYCRATS on the forum, and that's...SUCK IT UP, LOSERS - SUCK IT UP !!

Dachshund - the Magnificent MAGA Hound

Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Click to expand...
Our brief demonstrates that the Fourteenth Amendment was understood to grant citizenship only to those born in America that are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” requiring “complete” allegiance to this country, not to the children of foreign nationals passing through or living here without proper authorization.

The amicus brief traces the historical and constitutional record, showing that:

  • American Revolution-Era history confirms that American citizenship was founded on consent and allegiance, not on feudal birthright subjectship.
  • Reconstruction-Era debates and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, both of which tied birthright citizenship to full political allegiance.
  • Early Supreme Court decisions, including Elk v. Wilkins (1884), recognized that those owing allegiance to another power—including Native American tribes—fell outside the Clause’s protections.
  • Congressional practice, such as the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship by statute to Native Americans precisely because the Fourteenth Amendment had not done so.
Discussing the brief, Ryan P. Williams, President, The Claremont Institute said “The notion that foreign nationals can secure American citizenship for their children merely by being present on U.S. soil—lawfully or unlawfully—has no basis in the text, history, or original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Claremont Institute is proud to advance a constitutional understanding of citizenship—one based on consent, allegiance, and a nation’s sovereign right to define its own political community.”
 
martin said:
John Eastman, the eminent disbarred lawyer and accused felon.
Click to expand...

Key words, "ACCUSED." That doesn't make him a felon halfwit. For that, it would require a conviction and failed appeals.

martin said:
There is just one way "birthright citizenship" will fall out of The Constitution and that is by the Court making the Amendment mean something it does not say.
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual. But then, when are brainless Kamala voters ever right about anything. You seem to enjoy being stupid and ignorant.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not exactly the guy I'd be behind rooting for to win this case. Eastman's something of a fringe nutter.
Click to expand...

How so?

T. A. Gardner said:
But, on birthright citizenship, we likely shouldn't be giving it to persons born to parents who have no civic relationship to the US. That is, casual presence in the US via tourism, temporary visa like a student or work, or presence illegally (eg., in the commission of a criminal act) should not be rewarded with citizenship.
Click to expand...
 
FastLane said:
Why was the Snyder Act needed?
Click to expand...
A question the brainless leftists will deflect and avoid.

The Snyder Act of 1921 authorizes Indian Affairs to operate programs for the benefit and assistance of American Indians and Alaska Natives throughout the United States. The Act is one of several legislative reforms that was designed to improve the living conditions for American Indians on reservations and in government boarding schools.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, granting full citizenship to American Indians and Alaska Native Americans. Though the Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, granted all U.S. citizens the right to vote regardless of race, it wasn't until the 1924 that American Indians and Alaska Native Americans could enjoy the rights granted by this amendment.

Today, Indian Affairs provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to a service population of approximately 2 million American Indians and Alaska Native people who are members of 574 federally recognized tribes in the 48 contiguous United States and Alaska. Indian Affairs programs support tribes and improve the quality of life of their members and communities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top