re: Chip Roy claims birthright citizenship can be ended by congressional bill.

quote:

---

Specifically, he noted that lawmakers could amend current federal statutes to establish exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign citizens who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily

---

but domiciled elsewhere

quote:

---

Chip Roy is wrong.

---

Then how are there restrictions on arms?

quote:

---

Because a majority of SCOTUS said there could be. The constitution says what a majority of SCOTUS decides it says at the given moment in time when SCOTUS answers the question.

---

So if it's tried another way... you are saying birthright citizenship then can be restricted, therefore making Roy right?

quote:

---

senate republicans will not pass it. Massie, Thune, McConnell, Cornyn , Cassidy - one or all will stop it.

---

Massie?

Regardless, this is the correct response. What SCOTUS would do is meaningless because Congress will never pass anything.

quote:

---

quote:
Chip Roy claims birthright citizenship can be ended by congressional bill.


Chip Roy is wrong.

Kavanaugh's concurrence said this may work, but he was 1 of 9 making that argument and there is a majority who disagrees, which is what matters.

---

You could have just said what you really meant which is:
"NUH UH!!!!!!!!!! Ain't gonna' happen, MAGAts!!!!! OMB!!!! REEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"

quote:

---

Kavanaugh's concurrence said this may work, but he was 1 of 9 making that argument and there is a majority who disagrees, which is what matters.

---

Trump should add 9 conservative SCOTUS justices and send it back. Dems have been crowing about adding more for years, give them what they asked for.

quote:

---

The SCOTUS ruling negated Article III Section 2 of the Constitution?

---

Roberts went extremely far in his opinion.

He said Birthright Citizenship was a RIGHT under the Constutition.

The way he wrote it, Congress can't take it away by legislation.

The only way to change it now is Amendment

Or, yes...the SpCrt could revisit it as you point out, but that is very unlikely for a long time

quote:

---

He said Birthright Citizenship was a RIGHT under the Constutition.

---

But if Congress passes a law against it and subsequently invokes this power, how would SCOTUS even address it?

quote:

---

Chip Roy is wrong.

---

Chip Roy is right.

The 14th Amendment was the ultimate reparation. It awarded citizenship to those who had served in bondage and bestowed a privilege that was not being afforded to White immigrants of the era.

Former slaves were moved to the front of the line. The nearly 200,000 Black men and women who served as soldiers, sailors and nurses who had put their lives on the line were legally rewarded for their newfound dedication to the country.

Justice Thomas wrote one of the greatest dissents in the history of the court
and pointed out that Roberts denied that "domicile" was required.

As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, both Roberts and Barrett knew exactly what the intent of the 14th Amendment was and still aligned with the DC establishment.

For you LSU folks, Roberts application of the Common Law definition of jurisdiction negates the reality that Louisiana was never under British rule and that your court structure dependent upon "civil law" isn't valid.

So basically, the court pushed the Black population to the back of the line again.

A Chinese woman can depart from a plane and have a child which has the same rights, or even more rights and privileges, as a child who's ancestors were in bondage for centuries.

Chip Roy is right because the 5th clause of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to correct Robert's bullshite "Domicile Denial."