I hope the Supreme Court changed the clear meaning of the 14th on birthright citizenship…

FastLane said:
So El Salvadorans are US citizens now? Don't our laws exclude El Salvadorans just like native Americans were excluded prior to 1924. Elk was excluded because his parents were excluded as citizens and they and he owed allegiance to another political community.
Click to expand...
I am sure there are El Salvadorians who are also American Citizens, dual citinship is common.
 
They are pretending that the "meaning" is "clear" because they refuse to pay attention to the actual explanation of the meaning from the author of the Amendment, which is the reason that Native Americans were not citizens.

If there are enough Justices that believe that the intent matters because it is a contract, Jarod's "clear meaning" argument is rubbish and he knows it.
 
archives said:
It doesn’t make a difference, their Originalism/Textualism rationale is pure bullshit, the Constitution has little to do with any of their decisions

Think of Thomas’s opening question in the immunity fiasco, he highlighted that no where in the Constitution does it state that a President was immune, that the Constitution even implied the opposite, but then he turned around and voted to grant immunity.

Scalia in the Heller case is the same, skipping over the prefatory clause, their rhetoric is pure bullshit, they care less about the Constitution or it’s meaning
Click to expand...
DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE, ANCHOVIES!
 
FastLane said:
So El Salvadorans are US citizens now? Don't our laws exclude El Salvadorans just like native Americans were excluded prior to 1924. Elk was excluded because his parents were excluded as citizens and they and he owed allegiance to another political community.
Click to expand...
Illegal aliens are not citizens of the Unites States...ever.
Anchovies is trying a special pleading fallacy.
 
archives said:
Appears someone missed the Marbury vs Madison case in history class, and the numerous cases since that which established Judicial Review as precedent law

Of course now he is going to regurgitate the antiquated constructionist understanding of the document as his rationale only to turn to his Google list of fallacies when asked then how such as the right to privacy is an established norm today
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution, anchovies.
 
Into the Night said:
The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution, anchovies.
Click to expand...
No one said they did, rather interpret the Constitution, or did you think the four pages written in 1787 covered in specific detail every situation that could ever possibly arise going forward

Even your predictable responses are getting lame
 
Damocles said:
They are pretending that the "meaning" is "clear" because they refuse to pay attention to the actual explanation of the meaning from the author of the Amendment, which is the reason that Native Americans were not citizens.

If there are enough Justices that believe that the intent matters because it is a contract, Jarod's "clear meaning" argument is rubbish and he knows it.
Click to expand...
And how often is the “actual meaning from the author of the Amendment” clear?
 
Jarod said:
I am sure there are El Salvadorians who are also American Citizens, dual citinship is common.
Click to expand...
So two El Salvadorans Manuel and Ramona sneak across the Rio Grande and Ramona (an El Salvador citizen) has a bouncing baby boy , Pedro. How is Pedro any different from Elk?
Elk was born owing allegiance to a political community and so was Pedro.
 
Damocles said:
They are pretending that the "meaning" is "clear" because they refuse to pay attention to the actual explanation of the meaning from the author of the Amendment, which is the reason that Native Americans were not citizens.

If there are enough Justices that believe that the intent matters because it is a contract, Jarod's "clear meaning" argument is rubbish and he knows it.
Click to expand...
Yep
 
Damocles said:
They are pretending that the "meaning" is "clear" because they refuse to pay attention to the actual explanation of the meaning from the author of the Amendment, which is the reason that Native Americans were not citizens.

If there are enough Justices that believe that the intent matters because it is a contract, Jarod's "clear meaning" argument is rubbish and he knows it.
Click to expand...
This is a very elementary argument. The framers of the 14th wrote it for specific historical incidences, but in a way that would apply to future situations based on principals not specific historical facts.
 
Jarod said:
This is a very elementary argument. The framers of the 14th wrote it for specific historical incidences, but in a way that would apply to future situations based on principals not specific historical facts.
Click to expand...
lol. I love how you try to throw shade. The gentleman who wrote it gave a clear explanation of its application. Pretending you have to be "more complex" and try to make it mutable and "living" is a constant argument between pretensive "scholars" who want to "interpret" away the restrictions added by the framers and originalists who want to follow what was written. There is a way to change it, the framers gave it a process and that process has been followed 27 times showing that it is valid, possible, and reasonable; that you want to change it through feels doesn't change this reality. If you want to change what the constitution does you should Amend it, otherwise follow the contract that the states ratified.
 
Damocles said:
lol. I love how you try to throw shade. The gentleman who wrote it gave a clear explanation of its application. Pretending you have to be "more complex" and try to make it mutable and "living" is a constant argument between pretensive "scholars" who want to "interpret" away the restrictions added by the framers and originalists who want to follow what was written. There is a way to change it, the framers gave it a process and that process has been followed 27 times showing that it is valid, possible, and reasonable; that you want to change it through feels doesn't change this reality. If you want to change what the constitution does you should Amend it, otherwise follow the contract that the states ratified.
Click to expand...
What was John A. Bingham's clear explanation of its application?
 
archives said:
No one said they did,
Click to expand...
YOU did, anchovies. Don't try to deny your own posts!
archives said:
rather interpret the Constitution,
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret the Constitution either.
archives said:
or did you think the four pages written in 1787 covered in specific detail every situation that could ever possibly arise going forward
Click to expand...
It does. The Constitution does not expire due to age, anchovies.
archives said:
Even your predictable responses are getting lame
Click to expand...
LIF. Grow up.
 
Jarod said:
This is a very elementary argument. The framers of the 14th wrote it for specific historical incidences, but in a way that would apply to future situations based on principals not specific historical facts.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the 14th amendment grants citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring, Pretender.
 
Into the Night said:
YOU did, anchovies. Don't try to deny your own posts!

The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret the Constitution either.

It does. The Constitution does not expire due to age, anchovies.

LIF. Grow up.
Click to expand...
Wrong

Oh, so Americans don’t have a right to privacy, the Air Force is unconstitutional, and Americans don’t have a right to vote, to state a few items not listed in those four pages

Never said it did, your making up lies again

Just stating the facts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top