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

[Into the Night]

No one has made such an argument. Making stupid shit up again.

I have, and still do.

The 2020 election for President and Vice President faulted due to massive election fraud by Democrats and that too many States never chose their electors. They used the Covid Hoax to create the opportunity for the fraud. This also started the current economic depression that Trump is finally bringing to an end.

The right of self defense is inherent. It is simply because are are living and breathing things. Even an animal has this right to defend itself using any and all means available.

Yet here you are making your bullshit up as you go.

It IS bullshit to try to deny history and/or the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. He thinks he can just make them disappear.

 

[Nordberg]

There is a process to amend the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly. I cannot see, even a right-wing court willing to change it for daffy Donald. Some are on Trump's side, but secretly believe in justice and the American system. There are 2 who took the knee, giving up the law and their greedy souls to back Trump on everything.

 

[archives]

YOU can. That's basically all you do.

It doesn't. The Supreme Court is defined and declare by the Constitution of the United States. It has NO authority OVER that document. You are AGAIN denying Article III.

There was no election for President in 2020. Too many States never chose their electors.

No god or gods has anything to do with it. The right of self defense is inherent. Your are discarding Article I, and the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments of the US Constitution and all State constitutions.

You can't blame anyone else for YOUR fallacies, anchovies.

Random words. No apparent coherency.

Appears you missed the common sense part

Oh, so I guess simple rights as the right to privacy or a jury of your peers are unconstitutional since they are not in the Constitution but interpreted via the Constitution via the SCOTUS

I see we are back to the Elvis and Sasquatch idiocy, like saying the Vietnam War never ended cause it was never officially declared a war

Read Locke, a favorite of the Founders, and his Social Contract, simple explanation on why we don’t have absolute monarchs anymore. And rights are based on reason, not desire

And more of the Google fallacies bullshit

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong? So you think the US Constitution is wrong?

The Constitution is not Marxism leftism.

Why don't you leave the country if our governing document offends you?

He never said the Constitution offends him.

You might wish to explore the country of AMERICA.

America is not a country. It's a continent.

 

[gmark77]

There is a process to amend the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly. I cannot see, even a right-wing court willing to change it for daffy Donald. Some are on Trump's side, but secretly believe in justice and the American system. There are 2 who took the knee, giving up the law and their greedy souls to back Trump on everything.

Yeah, I think this is where the brakes on the car of our government system get a good testing. As you note it can't be changed by fiat of the President. My fear is that Trump will try to stumble around some "emergency" declaration and set aside critical Constitutional protections.

 

[gmark77]

He never said the Constitution offends him.

By demanding that POTUS violate the 14th Amendment it seems to me to be much the same thing.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure. It has to be.

If the 14th Amendment needs to be rejiggered for the MAGAts then I guess we can rejigger the Second for the Left.

Your call.

Denying the Constitution won't work, Gunky.

 

[gmark77]

Denying the Constitution won't work, Gunky.

I Know. That's why I find the MAGA movement so troubling. It is 100% aligned to take out critical parts of the US Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

There is a process to amend the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly. I cannot see, even a right-wing court willing to change it for daffy Donald. Some are on Trump's side, but secretly believe in justice and the American system. There are 2 who took the knee, giving up the law and their greedy souls to back Trump on everything.

Trump has not violated any part of the Constitution nor any law, Sybil.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!

 

[FastLane]

It's in the Constitution, dumbass.

What and where?

 

[gmark77]

Trump has not violated any part of the Constitution nor any law.

With the possible exception of whatever laws he violated that resulted in 34 felony convictions.

 

[FastLane]

I Know. That's why I find the MAGA movement so troubling. It is 100% aligned to take out critical parts of the US Constitution.

Or to add parts that aren't there. Like birthright citizenship.

 

[FastLane]

With the possible exception of whatever laws he violated that resulted in 34 felony convictions.

His appeals process has not been exhausted.

 

[Damocles]

There is a process to amend the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly. I cannot see, even a right-wing court willing to change it for daffy Donald. Some are on Trump's side, but secretly believe in justice and the American system. There are 2 who took the knee, giving up the law and their greedy souls to back Trump on everything.

Right, but hey, if it is a "living document" the courts can just rule on whatever they feel...

If it isn't and it is a contract, and there is an Amendment process, we then go to original intent and apply it, we know what the original intent of the 14th is because the person who wrote the thing told us. We also know that "under the jurisdiction thereof" meant something entirely different than what folks are saying it means today...

So, if in order to change the document you need an Amendment then it is a contract... if it is a contract the intent should apply... If such is the case then you may not like what ruling happens based on that original intent.

 

[Dachshund]

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.”

https://www.claremont.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CCJ-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Good post !

But it all makes me wonder why son must high-powered, legal argument is needed to point out just how utterly ridiculous and absurd the current principle of Birth Right Citizenship obviously is.

Did you know that there is a very lucrative industry that has been operating in America for years, to date, where heavily - pregnant, foreign women from, say, Russia Russia can pay big bucks to have their child born in a birthing clinic located in America. There are two of these 5-Star facilities located in California. So the pregnant Russian or Chinese (or whatever) woman pays to: be flown into LA, then driven to a birthing clinic, that really more like a an up= market hote, has her baby delivered by one of the resident obstetrician, and when she is recovered and ready to return home, is handed a brand - new US Passport for her new son or daughter as part of the package deal.

This is just ONE way the existing, lunatic "Birth-Right Citizenship" provision is abused. in the US.



Dachshund

 

[FastLane]

Sure. It has to be.

If the 14th Amendment needs to be rejiggered for the MAGAts then I guess we can rejigger the Second for the Left.

Your call.

There is no birthright citizenship like you interpret. The SCOTUS has already shot your interpretation of the 14th down with Elk V Wilkins.

 

[Into the Night]

Appears you missed the common sense part

You don't have common sense, anchovies.

Oh, so I guess simple rights as the right to privacy or a jury of your peers are unconstitutional since they are not in the Constitution

They are in the Constitution, anchovies. See the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments and Articles I and III.

but interpreted via the Constitution via the SCOTUS

SCOTUS has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution, anchovies. You are ignoring Article III again.

I see we are back to the Elvis and Sasquatch idiocy,

The only one bringing up Elvis or the Sasquatch is YOU, anchovies.

like saying the Vietnam War never ended cause it was never officially declared a war

It was, anchovies.

Read Locke, a favorite of the Founders, and his Social Contract, simple explanation on why we don’t have absolute monarchs anymore. And rights are based on reason, not desire

Irrelevant. Pivot fallacy. Dictatorships still exist, anchovies.

And more of the Google fallacies bullshit

You are not Google.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, I think this is where the brakes on the car of our government system get a good testing.

Government is not a car.

As you note it can't be changed by fiat of the President.

The President is not changing the Constitution. He has not violated any part of the Constitution.

My fear is that Trump will try to stumble around

Trump isn't stumbling. You are describing Biden.

some "emergency" declaration and set aside critical Constitutional protections.

It must really suck to be as paranoid as you.

 

[Into the Night]

By demanding that POTUS violate the 14th Amendment it seems to me to be much the same thing.

No one is demanding that Trump violate the 14th amendment. Trump has not violated any part of the Constitution.

 

[gmark77]

Or to add parts that aren't there. Like birthright citizenship.

This kind of debate fascinates me. SCOTUS has ruled on this MULTIPLE times. You are simply wrong. And saying it does not make it so.

Birthright citizenship is not only in the Constitution but it has been affirmed by SCOTUS. The first time was 125 years ago.