January 23Jan 23 6 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Both are / to be questioned by interpretation. We'll now see how the ammendment is interpreted. However, your admission to Roe V Wade being only a court ruling brings a tear of joy to my eye. 🫶 What part of "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" is up for interpretation? From the Wong Kim Ark case: "As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, . . . and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. . . . But the opening words, "All persons born,” are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race . . . . The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States” by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. . . . The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court."
January 23Jan 23 Just now, Phillyterp85 said: What part of "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" is up for interpretation? From the Wong Kim Ark case: ""As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, . . . and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. . . . But the opening words, "All persons born,” are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race . . . . The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States” by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. . . . The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court."" Take your argument to the Supreme Court when it hits the docket councilor. Regardless, the kid(s) are likely headed back with their parents from the looks of it.
January 23Jan 23 Just now, lynched1 said: Take your argument to the Supreme Court when it hits the docket councilor. Regardless, the kid(s) are likely headed back with their parents from the looks of it. Thanks, I will. Won't be that hard since it's in the constitution. Seems like the person with the huge uphill climb is the person trying to overrule the constitution with an executive order. Funny, I remember a time when a certain party frowned upon such things....
January 23Jan 23 1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said: Thanks, I will. Won't be that hard since it's in the constitution. Seems like the person with the huge uphill climb is the person trying to overrule the constitution with an executive order. Funny, I remember a time when a certain party frowned upon such things.... I remember "No I won't be pardoning my son". Get over it. Or not.
January 23Jan 23 3 minutes ago, lynched1 said: I remember "No I won't be pardoning my son". Get over it. Or not. Oh I remember that one too. As well as his "you won't see my administration giving people preemptive pardons". Biden is obviously a hypocrite.
January 23Jan 23 2 hours ago, Bill said: Man, if you can play the long game and win against the constitution, I don’t know what the hell comes after that, but it won’t be good. Your entire framing is inverted. It would, in fact, be winning with the constitution.
January 23Jan 23 41 minutes ago, TEW said: Your entire framing is inverted. It would, in fact, be winning with the constitution. No. The letter of the law is the letter of the law. To think that the 14th does not at all cover jus soli is asinine. And it’s not even that you’re wrong in a way that I would refute with multiple paragraphs of retort. It’s such a simple matter that if you can’t see why you’re wrong prima facie, then it’s a you problem.
January 23Jan 23 22 minutes ago, Bill said: No. The letter of the law is the letter of the law. To think that the 14th does not at all cover jus soli is asinine. And it’s not even that you’re wrong in a way that I would refute with multiple paragraphs of retort. It’s such a simple matter that if you can’t see why you’re wrong prima facie, then it’s a you problem. Understand, I don’t disagree with you in spirit. As I said before, I prefer a textual interpretation. But you’re wrong saying "the letter of the law is the letter of the law.” That is not how our legal system actually works, which is why you end up with disputes like Roe v Wade and why the right combination of SCOTUS justices could rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to a formal militia only. In reality, the constitution is just a mechanical apparatus to resolve political disputes; with the right combination of agents within that apparatus, you can constitutionally make black mean white.
January 23Jan 23 8 hours ago, TEW said: Understand, I don’t disagree with you in spirit. As I said before, I prefer a textual interpretation. But you’re wrong saying "the letter of the law is the letter of the law.” That is not how our legal system actually works, which is why you end up with disputes like Roe v Wade and why the right combination of SCOTUS justices could rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to a formal militia only. In reality, the constitution is just a mechanical apparatus to resolve political disputes; with the right combination of agents within that apparatus, you can constitutionally make black mean white. Ah, I get what you’re saying. Oddly enough, I’d put Roe V Wade into a 9th Amendment category as abortion was actually pretty common when it was written. Ambiguity is fine when you’re giving rights. Not so much when you’re taking them away.
January 23Jan 23 I believe we lost light of the notion that the Constitution does not grant us our rights, but provides protections by limiting the governments ability to take them away. The bill of rights was unnecessary and a mistake.
January 23Jan 23 4 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: I believe we lost light of the notion that the Constitution does not grant us our rights, but provides protections by limiting the governments ability to take them away. The bill of rights was unnecessary and a mistake. If you were to do away with the bill of rights, then those former "rights” would be subject to the sovereignty of state decisions. You could see, for instance, blue states ban "hate speech” and red states ban pornography. Ultimately, if you want something to be a right of all citizens, it is unfortunately necessary to make an amendment to prevent states from infringing on those rights… unless you actually think the states should decide if they will have things such as legalized slavery or imprisonment without trial.
January 24Jan 24 https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/crime/2025/01/23/dorrance-street-building-the-target-of-providence-fbi-raid-thursday/77903757007/
January 24Jan 24 "We also witnessed a "collateral” arrest, where ICE arrested an illegal alien who wasn’t their initial target - but was with a MS-13 gang member who had been released by a sanctuary jurisdiction yesterday with an ICE detainer not honored. These collateral arrests are something that border czar Tom Homan has warned would happen in sanctuary jurisdictions. At one point, a woman yelled out "thank you” to ICE as a violent illegal alien was being arrested in her neighborhood."
January 24Jan 24 Qué Lástima. ¿Alguien necesita trabajo de jardinería por dinero en efectivo porque ahora mismo estoy realmente jodido?
January 24Jan 24 On 1/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, Dave Moss said: What’s confusing about people born here are citizens??? There’s no gray area. On 1/22/2025 at 8:41 PM, lynched1 said: I guess we're gonna find that out together.
January 24Jan 24 1 hour ago, lynched1 said: Biden could have done this at any time if liberals didn't hate America so much. "I’m not going back to Haiti!” narrator: he was in fact, sent back to Haiti.
January 24Jan 24 13 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: I believe we lost light of the notion that the Constitution does not grant us our rights, but provides protections by limiting the governments ability to take them away. The bill of rights was unnecessary and a mistake. the bill of rights literally says it doesn’t grant rights. It’s not the founders fault that people ignore the 9th.
January 24Jan 24 3 hours ago, Dave Moss said: I know that "Reagan" mushroom stamp was selected for effect but one of those judges was always going to have to be the one to get it to the Supreme court.
January 24Jan 24 I expect more citizens to be detained in these sweeps. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ice-raids-new-jersey-undocumented-immigrants_n_67931012e4b084b88b0f5af6
January 24Jan 24 10 hours ago, Bill said: the bill of rights literally says it doesn’t grant rights. It’s not the founders fault that people ignore the 9th. The founders that were against the bill of rights predicted this would happen. They feared that the people would give more weight to the enumerated rights, and they the government would assume they could infringe on the rights not enumerated. 9a was supposed to address that but it hasn’t.
January 24Jan 24 11 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: "I’m not going back to Haiti!” narrator: he was in fact, sent back to Haiti. And rightfully so.
January 24Jan 24 13 hours ago, lynched1 said: Biden could have done this at any time if liberals didn't hate America so much. And you got a loony on the left who thinks this is funny. One shouldn't be surprised I suppose because the mean orange man is doing it
Create an account or sign in to comment