re: This is all you need to know about the SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship.

quote:

---

SCOTUS will pass the buck in a already beaten down to their bank accounts special interests, and blackmail----worthless body of congress critters.

---

Here how it will go. The court will rule that birth right citizenship should be eligible to only children of citizens or resident aliens, but that clarifying or codifying it cannot be done by executive order. It must be done by a law and Congress, or an amendment to the constitution.

And good luck with all of that especially if it requires an amendment.

quote:

---

IF the 'common understanding' of "domicile' were to be expanded to include one's mental state, could a resident of Uganda who "believed himself to be a US resident" would be included as a citizen??? - or would we disregard his "belief" ?

---

The legal definition is pretty clear in tons of caselaw: "Residence in fact" and intent to reside indefinitely (courts can look at several factors)...

quote:

---

What about all other persons who participated in the process?

---

What about them? We know exactly what the author meant, and so did everyone who voted for it, since he’s on record explaining it in detail. Just because some people refuse to accept that meaning doesn’t make it any less valid.

quote:

---

Why don’t you conveniently tell us what “well regulated” meant in the justification clause in 1789.

---

I've always assumed it meant that the use of 'arms' should follow any laws that regulate time, manner, place, purpose, . .

you know - common sense stuff.

our forefathers were very much common sense people

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind what they would have thought of today's conundrums of "what is a woman?" or "Should people who should not be here in the first place be able to demand free stuff/services from the tax-paying public, vote in out elections, demonstrate in our streets to the inconvenience of American citizens, and declare that any of their children should be citizens of the country they despise."

Not sure there would be much debate on that topic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why don’t you conveniently tell us what “well regulated” meant in the justification clause in 1789.

---

I've always assumed it meant that the use of 'arms' should follow any laws that regulate time, manner, place, purpose

---

“Well regulated”, in modern American English, would translate to “properly equipped/functioning”. It had nothing to do with following any laws restricting arms in any way, in fact this amendment limits the government from making any laws restricting arms (including firearms) in any way. A small infringement is still an infringement. The “well regulated” words in the second amendment are in what’s normally called the “justification clause” - think of it like this: Because the militia must be properly equipped to wage war, the government cannot infringe on the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. If you’re confused why the justification (Prefactory) clause uses “militia” and the Operative (Right) clause uses “people”, just know that there was no confusion for the founding fathers. They were very specific that the militia was the people (men of fighting age). There is no contradiction.

quote:

---

our forefathers were very much common sense people There is absolutely no doubt in my mind what they would have thought of today's conundrums of "what is a woman?" or "Should people who should not be here in the first place be able to demand free stuff/services from the tax-paying public, vote in out elections, demonstrate in our streets to the inconvenience of American citizens, and declare that any of their children should be citizens of the country they despise." Not sure there would be much debate on that topic.

---

They would roll in their grave if they knew what happened to their country not only now, but in the early to mid 1860s as well.