Other than the 21st amendment, birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment may be the most plainly worded language in any constitutional amendment of all time. It's definitely more clear that "the right to bear arms".
How, who, what in their right minds would think that a president could repeal birthright citizenship laws with the stroke of his/her pen? Oh, what, FOUR Supreme Court judges.
They are all insane. The best evidence our own government could muster in defending their ability to cancel birthright citizenship was based on the text of a funeral oration for President Lincoln. Four judges who rose to the top of their respective fields simply ignored a hundred years of laws and legal precedent, in addition to the plainly worded text in the constitution.
@wildgrass saidThe majority yesterday dumped a unanimous 90 year old precedent written by one of the most conservative justices in the 20th Century to give Trump total control of "independent" agencies.
Other than the 21st amendment, birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment may be the most plainly worded language in any constitutional amendment of all time. It's definitely more clear that "the right to bear arms".
How, who, what in their right minds would think that a president could repeal birthright citizenship laws with the stroke of his/her pen? Oh, what, FOUR S ...[text shortened]... ndred years of laws and legal precedent, in addition to the plainly worded text in the constitution.
Nothing these clowns do or write shocks me anymore.
@no1marauder saidI started a thread on that too. I honestly tried to read that majority opinion but it's mostly nonsense. I think you know the justices are just making stuff up if you can't follow their logic and they avoid obvious precedent.
The majority yesterday dumped a unanimous 90 year old precedent written by one of the most conservative justices in the 20th Century to give Trump total control of "independent" agencies.
Nothing these clowns do or write shocks me anymore.
But this one, even though they were in the minority, is almost more shocking. It's like the government threw a dead fish on their desk and asked them to call it a carrot and four of the justices said "sure".
2 edits
@wildgrass saidhttps://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-historic-attends-supreme-court-arguments-birthright-citizenship/story?id=131610905
How, who, what in their right minds would think that a president could repeal birthright citizenship laws with the stroke of his/her pen? Oh, what, FOUR Supreme Court judges.
Trump was the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend oral arguments for a SCOTUS hearing. Presidents usually don't attend out of respect for separation of powers.
This seems like a form of obstruction, using the intimidation he has over Republicans to sway the conservative court ruling his way.
@wildgrass saidwhat does..."subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
Other than the 21st amendment, birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment may be the most plainly worded language in any constitutional amendment of all time. It's definitely more clear that "the right to bear arms".
How, who, what in their right minds would think that a president could repeal birthright citizenship laws with the stroke of his/her pen? Oh, what, FOUR S ...[text shortened]... ndred years of laws and legal precedent, in addition to the plainly worded text in the constitution.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou people are as dumb as the day is long.
what does..."subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
It's even in English. A language you want everyone in the US to speak.
Why? You obviously can't understand it.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAnd I thought the court throwing out Roe v. Wade's 50-year precedent was bad.
The majority yesterday dumped a unanimous 90 year old precedent written by one of the most conservative justices in the 20th Century to give Trump total control of "independent" agencies.
Nothing these clowns do or write shocks me anymore.
@wildgrass saidI think it is shocking that the split was 5-4.
Other than the 21st amendment, birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment may be the most plainly worded language in any constitutional amendment of all time. It's definitely more clear that "the right to bear arms".
How, who, what in their right minds would think that a president could repeal birthright citizenship laws with the stroke of his/her pen? Oh, what, FOUR S ...[text shortened]... ndred years of laws and legal precedent, in addition to the plainly worded text in the constitution.
If Trump gets one more pick, it could actually go away.
I never thought I'd see in my lifetime a black Justice agreeing with white supremacists, meaning the people who wanted birthright citizenship to go away even before the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision in 1944.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAre you practicing english as a second language?
what does..."subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
It obviously means that you have to be physically within US borders when you are born to qualify for birthright citizenship.
What do you think it "means"? A psychedelic cult pondering the meaning of life? Do you think the writers of the amendment added it in there so that a future president could overturn 100 years of established US law with a flick of his pen?
The Supreme Court actually saved Trump politically here, because absolute chaos would ensue if birth certificates no longer serve as citizenship documentation.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidMaybe you're trying to argue that US law does not apply to persons who aren't citizens?
what does..."subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
That seems reeeeee-diculous.
@wildgrass saidThere is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. When the letter can be used to violate the spirit of the law, you should know that the law has failed, and needs to be re-worded.
Other than the 21st amendment, birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment may be the most plainly worded language in any constitutional amendment of all time. It's definitely more clear that "the right to bear arms".
How, who, what in their right minds would think that a president could repeal birthright citizenship laws with the stroke of his/her pen? Oh, what, FOUR S ...[text shortened]... ndred years of laws and legal precedent, in addition to the plainly worded text in the constitution.
Some people take a while to figure this out, some dont. If you do then kindly back away and allow people to do the right thing so that what the law intended, can be enforced.
@Rajk999 saidThere is am mechanism in place to chaneg the constitution if tehre is any need.
There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. When the letter can be used to violate the spirit of the law, you should know that the law has failed, and needs to be re-worded.
Some people take a while to figure this out, some dont. If you do then kindly back away and allow people to do the right thing so that what the law intended, can be enforced.
@Rajk999 said😆 😆 😆 😆
There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. When the letter can be used to violate the spirit of the law, you should know that the law has failed, and needs to be re-worded.
Some people take a while to figure this out, some dont. If you do then kindly back away and allow people to do the right thing so that what the law intended, can be enforced.
@Ponderable saidThe mechanism involved in modifying the US constitution requires up to 2 years in the best of circumstances, and that is when the parties agree. RIght now the Democrats oppose any and all suggestions pertaining to birthright citizenship, so this is likely an impossible situation. There are up to 300,000 births to illegals per year in the US, because the US allows anchor babies. In Europe this is not allowed and children inherit the nationality of their parents. In an era of uncontrolled immigration that puts a strain on a country's resources it makes more sense to end that archaic statement in the constitution.
There is am mechanism in place to chaneg the constitution if tehre is any need.