Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[San Souci]

Yep, so what are you disagreeing with me about?

Answering a post is NOT disagreeing. Actually ,it was meant to be affirming.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Answering a post is NOT disagreeing. Actually ,it was meant to be affirming.

Oh, got it my misunderstanding.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't see it that way. The amendment, as written, doesn't provide any definition, as has been pointed out. I look at what the intent was when it was written. This is why I also asked, if you can find any examples of BRC to aliens (non citizen) between 1866 and 1898, that would certainly indicate that maybe they allowed it, but until that time, I can only go off of what they said in their debates.

No court has ever accepted (almost assuredly never will) an argument on jurisdiction. As far as the courts are concerned, that has been decided.

 

[schmidlap]

Hyper-partisan, xenophobic ideologues infatuated with their pipe-dream of an absolutist monarchy aside, the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land.

U.S. District Judge John C. — a Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the bench since 1980—issued his own injunction. Trump is simply trying to amend the 14th Amendment—which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction—for political reasons, the judge said.

“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or something ignored, whether that be for political or personal gain,” Coughenour said. “In this courtroom and under my watch the rule of law is a bright beacon, which I intend to follow.”

View attachment 1076432
​

Why do the sexual abuser/business fraud/convicted felon's panytywaist lickspittles's admit they can't refute documented truth by mindlessly responding "Fake News"?

 

[schmidlap]

Why do the sexual abuser/business fraud/convicted felon's panytywaist lickspittles's admit they can't refute documented truth by mindlessly responding "Fake News"?

One theory: Mischievous pixies have sprinkled their fairy dust upon them, and their cognition is severely addled.

​

 

[MarathonMike]

Why do the sexual abuser/business fraud/convicted felon's panytywaist lickspittles's admit they can't refute documented truth by mindlessly responding "Fake News"?

I thought squidlips was gone after Trump's soul-crushing defeat of Kamala and the Democrat Regime. Oh good she's still here giving us her riveting opinions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No court has ever accepted (almost assuredly never will) an argument on jurisdiction. As far as the courts are concerned, that has been decided.

I agree, thay doesn't mean they are right. A court made an interpretation. Their interpretation goes against the spirit of the amendment. That's fine, but then a new court can revert back to a different meaning, as what we saw with roe.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I agree, thay doesn't mean they are right. A court made an interpretation. Their interpretation goes against the spirit of the amendment. That's fine, but then a new court can revert back to a different meaning, as what we saw with roe.

You understand the sense of it, but miss the point. Only, not the judges, think it goes against the spirit of the Amendment.

In fact, it is you who try to redefine the spirit.

If you can't do it by the Amendment process, it won't happen in our lifetimes.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You understand the sense of it, but miss the point. Only, not the judges, think it goes against the spirit of the Amendment.

In fact, it is you who try to redefine the spirit.

If you can't do it by the Amendment process, it won't happen in our lifetimes.

Again, an amendment isn't needed. All that is required is a new court to define "jurisdiction", as they did in 1898.

I keep going back to this, but this is precisely the danger of not adhering to the original scope of the cotus. Interpretations against the original intent can have adverse effects.

 

[San Souci]

Why do the sexual abuser/business fraud/convicted felon's panytywaist lickspittles's admit they can't refute documented truth by mindlessly responding "Fake News"?

The only Pantywaists are Dems. YOU guys support Fagism and Trannys.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Again, an amendment isn't needed. All that is required is a new court to define "jurisdiction", as they did in 1898.

I keep going back to this, but this is precisely the danger of not adhering to the original scope of the cotus. Interpretations against the original intent can have adverse effects.

Did they?  Links, please.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Did they?  Links, please.

Yes, read wong kim ark, that was a deviation from the original intent

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, read wong kim ark, that was a deviation from the original intent

The Wong Kim Ark case was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. The Court ruled that a child born in the United States to parents who are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign government automatically becomes a U.S. citizen at birth1. This interpretation was based on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Some argue that this decision deviated from the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was primarily aimed at ensuring citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. However, the majority opinion in the case emphasized that the Amendment was declaratory in form and enabling in effect, extending citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. who is subject to its jurisdiction2.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[schmidlap]

The only Pantywaists are Dems. YOU guys support Fagism and Trannys.

You are pissy because the U.S.Constitution guarantees the rights of all Americans, and your Lardass Messiah is not allowed to crap on the U.S.Constitution.

A Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order​

 

[San Souci]

You are pissy because the U.S.Constitution guarantees the rights of all Americans, and your Lardass Messiah is not allowed to crap on the U.S.Constitution.

A Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order​

So Y'all want this country to be one big FagDom?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" There Of Means A Subject Of Us Jurisdiction "

* Imbeciles In The Judges Chambers *

Hyper-partisan, xenophobic ideologues infatuated with their pipe-dream of an absolutist monarchy aside, the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land.

U.S. District Judge John C. — a Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the bench since 1980—issued his own injunction. Trump is simply trying to amend the 14th Amendment—which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. [B]and[/B][B]subject to its jurisdiction[/B]—for political reasons, the judge said.

Again , more blathering stupidity by jurisprudence , misquoting us 14th amendment as would an imbecile , relating " and subject to its jurisdiction " and not relating that us 14th amendment clause , as it was framed , includes the term thereof .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Keep Rowing "

* Court Of Public Opinion And Reciprocity *

And ROE is now dead.

The roe v wade is not dead , rather roe v wade has been usurped by dumbfounded conclusion by a scotus , now guilty of sedition against us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th amendments , as well as being guilty of malfeasance against title 1 section 8 of us code .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" No Plaintiff Could Maintain The Cause Of Action "

* State Of Texas Issues Baseless Religious Fat Wad To Private Bounty Hunters *

You have no idea how Constitutional law works. What a silly post above.

There is not a legal victim in elective abortion and redress of grievances can take many forms , to include prosecution , both civil and criminal .

As a side note , in the opinion of this moniker , to abate misuse of public moneys for malicious political gain , politicians voting in favor of laws that will receive constitutional challenge should be required to post a bond to cover the litigation and forfeit the bond if the legislation ultimately fails to prevail in its constitutional validity .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A85/196650/20211018120230336_US%20v.%20Texas%20application%20final.pdf

The district court correctly held that the United States is likely to prevail on the merits of its two claims that S.B. 8 violates the Constitution. 1. In seeking a stay in the Fifth Circuit, Texas did not try to argue that S.B. 8 comports with this Court’s precedents on abortion. With good reason: This Court has long recognized that the Constitution protects a pregnant woman’s right “to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,” which until viability lacks“interests * * * strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992).

S.B. 8 is a statute enacted by the Texas legislature,signed by the Texas governor, and enforceable in Texas courts. If Texas had not enacted S.B. 8, no private plaintiff could maintain the cause of action that it creates. And no plaintiff could maintain an S.B. 8 cause of action or recover the statutory damages it authorizes without action by the Texas courts. It is, in short,plain that Texas is responsible for the constitutional violations caused by S.B. 8. It should be equally plain that where, as here,the State’s sovereign immunity does not apply, Texas can been joined to prevent those violations.
....
If, as Texas insists, courts cannot enjoin the State itself, or individual state officers, or private parties who actually bring S.B. 8 suits, then a State could effectively nullify any constitutional decision of this Court with which it disagreed by enacting a sufficiently punitive statutory scheme and delegating its enforcement to the public at large.
....
The fundamental question presented in this case is whether States may nullify disfavored constitutional rights by purporting to disclaim their own enforcement authority and delegating enforcement of unconstitutional laws to private bounty hunters.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

" There Of Means A Subject Of Us Jurisdiction "

* Imbeciles In The Judges Chambers *

Again , more blathering stupidity by jurisprudence , misquoting us 14th amendment as would an imbecile , relating " and subject to its jurisdiction " and not relating that us 14th amendment clause , as it was framed , includes the term thereof .

We know you don't get it.

 

[schmidlap]

" There Of Means A Subject Of Us Jurisdiction "

* Imbeciles In The Judges Chambers *

Again , more blathering stupidity by jurisprudence , misquoting us 14th amendment as would an imbecile , relating " and subject to its jurisdiction " and not relating that us 14th amendment clause , as it was framed , includes the term thereof .

Your contempt for the law is noted.