re: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED

quote:

---

There was not really a concept of wholesale illegal immigration when the 14th amendment was passed

---

Here is the issue: when it comes down to it most individuals want strict construction on certain constitutional issues but broad construction on others.

I hate legislative intent arguments, though I have made them many times, because inevitably in orals a judge/justice will ask me why, if it was the intent, was it not codified. The answer is either that the drafters were stupid*, or the documented intent was not shared by all who voted for it, thus it was removed/left out in order to promulgate.

* poor construction or a lack of imagination to predict future unintended consequences



As an aside, I think the framers, after living in the modern US for a week, would be gobsmacked at the idea we only have 27 amendments.

quote:

---

The purpose of the 2A was so that we the people were on an equal footing with the government/military if the need for another revolution arose.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward.

---

I am generally happy with the state of gun rights on the federal level, but I always find it interesting how often that 4 word phrase is repeated without mention of the pesky 4 word phrase at the beginning of the same sentence.

quote:

---

17 after the Bill of Rights

---

Exactly, the concept that 10 were viewed as necessary in ~4 years, and only 17 more in 235 years seems on its face odd.

quote:

---

If the parents are illegal they are fugitives and subject to immediate removal upon apprehension. They are subjects of the jurisdiction they came from.

So should the child be.

---

This ^^^ is the real issue.

Illegal immigrants crash the border, drop a child and they now have an anchor into the US. This shite has been going on for at least 75 years and there isn't one DC politician over that 75 year span who didn't know what the consequences of unfettered illegal immigration would be to the American people.......many of these DC politicians and their US Chamber of Commerce friends wanted mass illegal immigration.

quote:

---

No. We can always amend the Constitution

---

that is a cop-out = that could be uses as your only concept for any problem

The last amendment was good enough for morally inclined people.

We all knew the intent

A harm isALREADY being done in adhering to someone ELSE's 'opinion' of what it means = when the intent was totally obvious to anyone with an ounce of logic or morals.

Democrats are already violating the amendment in place - and they are doing it because they can benefit ELECTORALLY from it - by addition illegal propagations of the original mistake.

And you want another amendment?? - that sounds more like putting any possibility of a solution to this simple problem for another half century - and you know it.

No thanks - I'd rather fight on this hill rather than the mountain in the future..

I heard on the Five that 1,000,000 communist Chinese had gone to a USAPacific Island given birth and went back to China so now there are 1,000,000 communist Chinese voting in USA starting in 2030….

What do you think the framers of the constitution would think of that SCOTUS?

quote:

---

I always find it interesting how often that 4 word phrase is repeated without mention of the pesky 4 word phrase at the beginning of the same sentence.

---

There’s nothing “peaky” about it if you the definition of “regulated”. Hint: It does NOT mean “controlled by government” as we use it today.

Hurr durr. I tink dat subjeck to da jurisdicshun mean arrested for da crimez.