Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

:link: you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.
This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"


Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.

Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.


Nothing dishonest about an answer that covers the question. Obviously the right thinks Levin, or trump, or some other rattlehead found a magic phrase that will solve all your fears and worries about immigration, and I say it won't work. That's about as far as we need to go. If you think your little idea is valid, then you don't need to be wasting time here. Show what kind of a man you are and demand that somebody do something about it. If your little phrase is that forceful and definitive, we should be hearing about congressional hearitngs by tomorrow night.
No I am just pointed out how dishonest the left and you are.

Always post half truths, so you can trick the uninformed, if you say you know the 14th so well you know it was written for slaves, it didn't include Indians or foreign ambassadors children born here.

God damb I personally think some one born on US soil is an American
Like said in this thread in the CDZ

CDZ - Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you just want to attack a talk show host because you don't like information put out there for people to learn more about something? And your refute was to just post part of the 14th amendment?

But hey why should I be surprised that's all your ilk does... Attack messengers and post half truths.
 
Trump can use Obama ACA's precedent to rewrite laws he doesn't like
He may certainly try if he elected President, and the courts will strike it down.

He'll ignore them too, just like Andrew Jackson

Why doesn't he tell us that in the election... That he will serve as Dictator not President.

Elections have consequences, we'll win.

You called us "the enemy" and we'll be in charge after 2016.
 
The GOP mainstream may be, but, you, Frank and your buddies, will be on the curb looking through the plate glass windows at us who are bellied up to the GOP HQs "we run things" Bar. Mine is the milk shake.
 
Ah, Levin. What a douche. He stimulates listeners to outrage though his whiney, preposterous Retard Radio program.
 
Levin is absolutely correct, nothing in the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship to aliens.. actually, it specifically prohibits it.
 
Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

Uhm, that's not how it works jackass. A fact or two might help your case.
 
Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Don't be an idiot, Levin knows what he's talking about when it comes to the law and the constitution. Everything you know would fit in about 2% of his brain.
 
Levin is an outlier, pure and simple, reaching out to the simple minded. He is very successful.
 
The mentally ill have no inherent right to own guns.

Actually dummy, since they are not specifically prohibited, they do have the right.... that's the way our constitution works.
If they are mentally ill, they have no inherent right. That's how it works. The right to own guns is not absolute.

Really? And you derive this from where? So, mentally ill van be discriminate against? They can be abused?
 

Forum List

Back
Top