@Suzianne saidTrump???
Psychics not needed.
All you have to do is READ what they wrote.
It is clear as day.
You could also try reading other papers written by these same people. Their intent is crystal clear. If they saw you and Trump conspiring to corrupt their work, they would, like Marauder, say that the American people won't let them do that. My opinion is far less optimistic. Half of the American people are under thrall to a corrupt man and his government.
OK, tell us what they meant (then) when they wrote 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof..' We can agree that 'thereof' meant of the United States.
@AverageJoe1 saidThis is what happens when illiterates (mostly Trump fans) read the Constitution.
Trump???
OK, tell us what they meant (then) when they wrote 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof..' We can agree that 'thereof' meant of the United States.
@no1marauder saidI think you are mistaken. The role of the Supreme Court goes beyond simply interpreting the wording of the US constitution. They can also adapt to changing circumstances and rule so that the constitution evolves by precedent. It is what legal circles refer to as a Living Constitution. It is not cast in stone, and can change due to new environmental variables, which is what the US is currently undergoing. The recent antagonistic leanings of many immigrants, is exactly what can push the Supreme Court to use their power to inititate changes in immigration law.
The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the intentions of those who wrote the words not on "the current political environment".
@AverageJoe1 saidI can guess what what YOU want. SCREW birthright citizenship, right?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/
This is going on today, a big day. I predict that they will rule for President Trump, the 14th Amendment clearly applies ONLY to children of slaves. Democrats will not be happy, especially since Trump stopped future democrats at the Border.
Any predictions?
...[text shortened]... ng age of girls dropped from 18 to the age of 9. Go ahead, defend that. Y'all will defend anything.
But that means Trump will lose his citizenship because his mom was born in Scotland.
@Rajk999 saidGreat observation. I love the part that the judges are sitting there thinking these people are running all over us, and that they and their sponsors like marauder think that they will get away with it and that we will bend to their will.
I think you are mistaken. The role of the Supreme Court goes beyond simply interpreting the wording of the US constitution. They can also adapt to changing circumstances and rule so that the constitution evolves by precedent. It is what legal circles refer to as a Living Constitution. It is not cast in stone, and can change due to new environmental variables, which is wha ...[text shortened]... exactly what can push the Supreme Court to use their power to inititate changes in immigration law.
Actually, I’m not far off on that,…..if they beat us to death long enough, we could easily just give up. Like all the Black people that kept breaking into Lululemon and stealing clothes. It encouraged everyone else to do it and it went absolutely crazy and I guess the Supreme Court would just say just let them have it. That is certainly what they want the Supreme Court to say. That is what Marayder wants them to say.
Great Post. I would give you a thumb, but who gives a damn about those thumbs. I think just the libs. Reminds them of their kindergarten days.
1 edit
@sonhouse saidTrump?!?!
I can guess what what YOU want. SCREW birthright citizenship, right?
But that means Trump will lose his citizenship because his mom was born in Scotland.
Yes, I am against allowing the child of anyone who, being born in this country, becomes an automatic citizen. You would have to describe ‘define’ to me, and that would be quite a test, because you would not know who they are anymore than we do. But you would have to say “ it is acceptable that the child of anyone in the universe that is born on the railroad track in this country becomes an automatic citizen of this country!””. You have to say that if you want your point to make any sense, you keep trying to see what I think. Tell me what you think.
@Rajk999 saidRight wingers strongly reject the idea of a "living Constitution"; the conservative justices all profess to base their decisions on "originalism". https://home.heinonline.org/blog/2023/10/constitutional-interpretation-legal-realism-originalism-and-living-constitutionalism/
I think you are mistaken. The role of the Supreme Court goes beyond simply interpreting the wording of the US constitution. They can also adapt to changing circumstances and rule so that the constitution evolves by precedent. It is what legal circles refer to as a Living Constitution. It is not cast in stone, and can change due to new environmental variables, which is wha ...[text shortened]... exactly what can push the Supreme Court to use their power to inititate changes in immigration law.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe SCOTUS decided that in 1898:
So here we go again. A liberal cherry-picks a few words, but omits '...subject to the jurisdiction thereof". First thing that comes to all of our minds...why didnt they just stop with 'born or naturalized'? Why didn't they?
Applying the definition of 'jurisdiction' would necessarily have to consider the way that the word was used at the time, (mid 1860's) when d ...[text shortened]... s to be able to be citizens here? Do you hate our treasured country? I thought you just hate Trump.
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/#tab-opinion-1918089 at 169 US 683
This was based on well-understood common law principles that predated even independence that had never, and still haven't, been repudiated by any court in the US.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI think you findings (whew). are that they Draw The LINE! at children 'born of alien enemies.
The SCOTUS decided that in 1898:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar rela ...[text shortened]... redated even independence that had never, and still haven't, been repudiated by any court in the US.
Whew again. OK, so there are "alien enemies" among us. Alien illegal invaders, no denying that, we agree. And you find this 1898 😆 😆 decision by 1898 judges that they cannot citizen-ize their children.
I'll keep this short with a question. Do you think if a person (brown,,,,sorry, Suzianne..) who we know nothing about and is NOT NOT NOT shown as a citizen of this country in the....library?...should HAVE HER NEW BABY WELCOMED AS A CITIZEN INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!???!?!?!!?!?!?!????!?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 said"Alien enemies" refers to actual troops of an occupying power, not immigrants" " children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation". Read the decision; it is right wing propaganda that you have talked yourself into to refers to immigrants as "invaders" - such a use would have been met with incredulity by the authors of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
I think you findings (whew). are that they Draw The LINE! at children 'born of alien enemies.
Whew again. OK, so there are "alien enemies" among us. Alien illegal invaders, no denying that, we agree. And you find this 1898 😆 😆 decision by 1898 judges that they cannot citizen-ize their children.
I'll keep this short with a question. Do you think if a person (bro ...[text shortened]... ld HAVE HER NEW BABY WELCOMED AS A CITIZEN INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!???!?!?!!?!?!?!????!?
From an 1830 SCOTUS decision:
"Thus, the children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign then occupied by them by conquest are still aliens". https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/#155 at 28 US 156
@AverageJoe1 saidTo answer your question in the last paragraph, under current conditions in the US where we have a shortage of workers and a low birth rate, we should be overjoyed to welcome new citizens born here.
I think you findings (whew). are that they Draw The LINE! at children 'born of alien enemies.
Whew again. OK, so there are "alien enemies" among us. Alien illegal invaders, no denying that, we agree. And you find this 1898 😆 😆 decision by 1898 judges that they cannot citizen-ize their children.
I'll keep this short with a question. Do you think if a person (bro ...[text shortened]... ld HAVE HER NEW BABY WELCOMED AS A CITIZEN INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!???!?!?!!?!?!?!????!?
@AverageJoe1 saidIf born here, yes. End of story.
I think you findings (whew). are that they Draw The LINE! at children 'born of alien enemies.
Whew again. OK, so there are "alien enemies" among us. Alien illegal invaders, no denying that, we agree. And you find this 1898 😆 😆 decision by 1898 judges that they cannot citizen-ize their children.
I'll keep this short with a question. Do you think if a person (bro ...[text shortened]... ld HAVE HER NEW BABY WELCOMED AS A CITIZEN INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!???!?!?!!?!?!?!????!?
@AverageJoe1 saidEvery civilized country in the world does this.
Trump?!?!
Yes, I am against allowing the child of anyone who, being born in this country, becomes an automatic citizen. You would have to describe ‘define’ to me, and that would be quite a test, because you would not know who they are anymore than we do. But you would have to say “ it is acceptable that the child of anyone in the universe that is born on the railroad ...[text shortened]... you want your point to make any sense, you keep trying to see what I think. Tell me what you think.
@AverageJoe1 saidEveryone who breaks the law should have their day in court.
Great observation. I love the part that the judges are sitting there thinking these people are running all over us, and that they and their sponsors like marauder think that they will get away with it and that we will bend to their will.
Actually, I’m not far off on that,…..if they beat us to death long enough, we could easily just give up. Like all the Black people th ...[text shortened]... ho gives a damn about those thumbs. I think just the libs. Reminds them of their kindergarten days.
Citizen or not.