re: Reagan era judges shoots down Trump 14th amendment EO

Yeah this is dumb

Ok, good. Now we are getting somewhere.

quote:

---

Actually, I didn’t.

I said it needed to be looked at in terms of factors that simply did not exist at the time.

---

But. You did.

quote:

---

My point: Every aspect of the Constitution needs some element of review to judge its relevance and application in a fundamentally different world than when it was drafted. We should be VERY slow to make big changes to conventional wisdom, but it should not be sacrosanct, either.

---

There is already a mechanism to interpret how the rule of law, as applied to the government, is applied in today's modern age.
It's called the Supreme Court.

quote:

---

but it should not be sacrosanct, either

---

This is where you are going to get a fight from a lot of people. This nation, is not what it is, or where it came from, without the foundation of the constitution.
No insult thrown, but until a person knows, and understands, that this is our foundation, said person doesn't respect it.

quote:

---

The legal argument against birthright.

---

quote:

---

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

---

It requires mis-stating things like this and relying on legislative history (of a curated subset of legislators).

Bad/dishonest rhetoric is bad/dishonest.

As I stated earlier:

quote:

---

WKA is clear there are only 2 exceptions to birthright citizenship:

1. Children of diplomats

2. Children born in areas of hostile occupation (which was about Indians and the potential for another War of 1812, but is not relevant today as there hasn't been an occupation on US soil since the War of 1812).

Which of those 2 classes do illegal aliens fall under?

---

LINK

For the record, It's not even my argument. I'm just explaining the actual law and copying the text of that case.

All of the content creators and clever legal "scholars" trying to push arguments pose questions and pretend they haven't been answered. I am just answering those questions with actual case law.

Like the "jurisdiction" one you read about. Wong Kim Ark covers that, too (there is more than what I quoted above, but that covers your comments specifically).

quote:

---

I can see

---

I bet you can see a lot of things shoved up your own arse.

quote:

---

Already explained to you.

---

I know. I'm just waiting for you to realize what you're saying.

Your legal analysis is:

Congress has absolute power with regards to naturalalization, but it's limited.


So, it has limited unlimited power.

quote:

---

Bad/dishonest rhetoric is bad/dishonest.

---

So, when you say it only has 2 exceptions you say those are facts, when that is obviously not true. It excluded Indians.

Also, to suggest that Justice Gray is just weaving a yarn when he included the information about Ark's family when justifying his opinion to grant him citizenship is extremely "bad/dishonest rhetoric."

quote:

---

I'm arguing to common sense. No one with any sense would implement a policy that destroys their country. When you game it out, that's where it leads.

---

that’s not how it works though.

you can argue an amendment is dated but you can’t just change it via EO.

you have to go through the process.

again, like the 2nd amendment.

I dont think the founder considered drive by or mass shooting. But the amendments there.

Care to explain?

Guy lives for this site