@Suzianne saidHe asked you what it meant little girl. He did not ask you to slander him.
You people are as dumb as the day is long.
It's even in English. A language you want everyone in the US to speak.
Why? You obviously can't understand it.
We are all waiting for you to tell us what it means.
You write such a tough post, but you cannot tell us what it means. In that case, we have before us another nothing Post, they have been several of those today..
@Suzianne saidYou write the word Black again. You areconstantly writing about race. You’re constantly writing about skin color.What difference does the color of the justice have?
I think it is shocking that the split was 5-4.
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.
As you know, this makes you appear to be a racist.
Just yesterday, I wrote a letter about the horrible Ilhan Omar, not giving up communication with the fraudsters, and you wrote back that I am writing about skin color. No obviously I was not, but you were certainly thinking about skin color. So I don’t write about it, but you think about it. And the forum goes round and round. Or frankly, you go round and round.
@Rajk999 saidYou're saying the spirit of US laws is that they do not apply to persons who aren't citizens?
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.
3 edits
@wildgrass saidI got this, one , my specialty. Yes, generally it does, it naturally applies to everyone that the law governs. . Laws often apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States, for crime traffic, et al.
You're saying the spirit of US laws is that they do not apply to persons who aren't citizens?
But there is a little more nuance you’re talking about constitutional rights and protections. Remember the constitution distinguishes between the people, persons and citizens. Pick one.
Non c itizens are entitled to many legal protections, but they’re not necessarily entitled to all rights and privileges that are reserved to citizens
@AverageJoe1 saidNot all privileges, obviously, but in this case it is explicitly stated in a constitutional amendment that if you're born here you're a citizen. There's no daylight between letter and spirit here. It cannot be interpreted any other way unless i) you can't read english,ii) you think the constitution is meaningless and can be ignored, or iii) you are insane.
I got this, one , my specialty. Yes, generally it does, it naturally applies to everyone that the law governs. . Laws often apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States, for crime traffic, et al.
But there is a little more nuance you’re talking about constitutional rights and protections. Remember the constitution distinguishes between the people, ...[text shortened]... ons, but they’re not necessarily entitled to all rights and privileges that are reserved to citizens
@vivify saidI still think the fundamental problem is that Congress is choosing not to govern, which forces 9 unelected bureaucrats to make decisions about how government should operate.
https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-historic-attends-supreme-court-arguments-birthright-citizenship/story?id=131610905
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 saidThe spirit of the US constitution is first to serve the interest of the American people, and second, all others who are under US control. This can be found in statements like "We the people", "for our posterity", and in the Gettysburg address, a government "for the people". This sentiment is repeated many times. The fact that you need to be told that means your heart is not with the US citizens.
You're saying the spirit of US laws is that they do not apply to persons who aren't citizens?
If ever the interest of illegal immigrants supersede the interest of citizens then that would be contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
@wildgrass said? If you are born here, you are a citizen. 🤔
Not all privileges, obviously, but in this case it is explicitly stated in a constitutional amendment that if you're born here you're a citizen. There's no daylight between letter and spirit here. It cannot be interpreted any other way unless i) you can't read english,ii) you think the constitution is meaningless and can be ignored, or iii) you are insane.
Are you into judicial philosophy here? We all know that.letter of law is its exact wording, the spirit refers to what is to be achieved by a law. The law says you cannot shoot a gun here. The spirit is to promote safety. This gets a bit silly.
So what is your point🤔
@Rajk999 saidHogwash. The US constitution is a living document intended to adapt to the times. But there's a process for these adaptations and those have nothing to do with Supreme Court justices. If the interest of illegal immigration supersede the interest of the citizens then we can adapt the constitution, write laws, enact new policies. This is baked into the cake, we have already amended the constitution 27 times for these types of reason. But you are looking at a carrot and calling it a fish, because of spirit?
The spirit of the US constitution is first to serve the interest of the American people, and second, all others who are under US control. This can be found in statements like "We the people", "for our posterity", and in the Gettysburg address, a government "for the people". This sentiment is repeated many times. The fact that you need to be told that means your heart is no ...[text shortened]... ts supersede the interest of citizens then that would be contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
More specifically, if the the spirit of granting citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" (which could not be written any more conscisely or explicitly) were in need of adaptation due to current demographic environments, then that decision is not up to 9 unelected bureaucrats to decide that the constitution was wrong. SCOTUS cannot amend the US constitution.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States". You can change it or write new laws, but there is no spirit to that. Certainly it should be universally appreciated that a president cannot just write an order telling everyone to add in another proviso to the constitution.
? If you are born here, you are a citizen. 🤔
Are you into judicial philosophy here? We all know that.letter of law is its exact wording, the spirit refers to what is to be achieved by a law. The law says you cannot shoot a gun here. The spirit is to promote safety. This gets a bit silly.
So what is your point🤔
3 edits
@wildgrass saidBut, easy man. You libs look negatively at E V E R Y T H I NG. Do you not find his efforts reasonable? Protecting our country? Let’s say I am president, and find something not right about a chinee taking pregnant wife to Guam and going back to China with a US citizen in the family!,!
The 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States". You can change it or write new laws, but there is no spirit to that. Certainly it should be universally appreciated that a president cannot just write an order telling everyone to add in another proviso to the constitution.
So the only device for me is to have SCOTUS rule on it. , the device being an Order from me as president,to start the wheels turning.
I think it was a good idea for him to try this,,,,,,,given his oath of office to protect our country. Do you not think it was a laudable effort to do this? He doesn’t actually sit at a beach all day, he is always trying to make things better. I don’t like him much either, but he’s always trying to make things better. You cannot knock that..
Edit: you are aware I assume that no one can call on the Scotus to make such a decision, like a one-off. There has to be wheels turning things have to be in process for them to get a handle on it. Thus, the order. The catalyst.
@AverageJoe1 saidMaggots lose and cry . Get your self a tissue and STFU
But, easy man. You libs look negatively at E V E R Y T H I NG. Do you not find his efforts reasonable? Protecting our country? Let’s say I am president, and find something not right about a chinee taking pregnant wife to Guam and going back to China with a US citizen in the family!,!
So the only device for me is to have SCOTUS rule on it. , the device bein ...[text shortened]... urning things have to be in process for them to get a handle on it. Thus, the order. The catalyst.
@wildgrass saidMore that one way to acheive your goals. Apparently there is a new bill on the table where an incoming tourist must swear they are not pregnant. If subsequently the person gives birth in the US they are charged a $100,000 fine and they must pay all medical expenses. Failure to do that will result in no birth certificate being issued. Problem solved. In the meantime let the normal procedure go ahead to modify the constitution.
Hogwash. The US constitution is a living document intended to adapt to the times. But there's a process for these adaptations and those have nothing to do with Supreme Court justices. If the interest of illegal immigration supersede the interest of the citizens then we can adapt the constitution, write laws, enact new policies. This is baked into the cake, we have already a ...[text shortened]... cted bureaucrats to decide that the constitution was wrong. SCOTUS cannot amend the US constitution.
@Rajk999 saidFine, do those other things but don't let 9 unelected bureaucrats change the constitution on their own. We got lucky on this one, a 5-4 decision in favor of sanity. It's remarkable that 4 people appointed to the top judicial positions in the land apparently cannot even read. They wrote something about "allegiance" that's obviously nowhere to be found in constitutional law. They made it up.
More that one way to acheive your goals. Apparently there is a new bill on the table where an incoming tourist must swear they are not pregnant. If subsequently the person gives birth in the US they are charged a $100,000 fine and they must pay all medical expenses. Failure to do that will result in no birth certificate being issued. Problem solved. In the meantime let the normal procedure go ahead to modify the constitution.
If 'achieving your goals' includes ignoring the law, and you're a judge, I'd say that's bad.
@wildgrass saidYou disagree with the method. How about the principle? Do you believe that a 180 year old law regarding birthright citizenship [which many European countries have removed from their books], is the right thing to do in the US today?
The 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States". You can change it or write new laws, but there is no spirit to that. Certainly it should be universally appreciated that a president cannot just write an order telling everyone to add in another proviso to the constitution.