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

[FastLane]

How Amendments are “interpreted” and how they are changed are two different things, and don’t be so sure based upon an “interpretation” of Eastman that this is the way they will decide, we’ve seen how fast other Eastman “interpretations” sunk

Read Elk v Wilkins

 

[FastLane]

So, what’s your point

Why was the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (AKA Snyder Act) needed at all?

 

[FastLane]

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”

You forgot a qualifier. Why not just say all persons? Why qualify the statement?

 

[archives]

for almost 50 years you were not a citizen simply from birthright. it wasn't an amendment that changed how we view this so obviously we can change the interpretation back without one as well

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

 

[zymurgy]

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

bwahaha - so the precedent of being able to change the interpretation without an amendment has also been set

I accept your surrender

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You have to have an amendment to change the Constitution, the President can not do that, nor can the Supreme Court.

You don't need an amendment to put some restrictions on a constitutional Right. For example, how many restrictions are on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[FastLane]

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

ELK v Wilkins set a precedent Just because you are born within the territorial boundary of the US does not make you a citizen of the US.

 

[FastLane]

bwahaha - so the precedent of being able to change the interpretation without an amendment has also been set

I accept your surrender

He went down in flames.

 

[FastLane]

So the Libratards ran away. Clearly they lost the debate.