1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

He always seems so desperate for a W lmao, his arguments are bat-ish retarded hahahahaha

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Thats mixing up two different things. We can still arrest and prosecute them under our criminal laws because they are physically here in our territory, just like we can bust a foreign tourist who robs a store or even a diplomats kid in some cases. But the 14th Amendment used subject to the jurisdiction to mean full political jurisdiction and real allegiance to the US, not just being bound by some of our rules. Thats why the framers excluded Native Americans even though we could often still enforce laws against them in certain ways, and why people entering illegally from other countries still owe their main allegiance to their home nation.

That text is referring to the person who is born and basically stating that they fall under US jurisdiction by being born in the US. It isn't referring to the mother.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, every court in history has disagreed with you, but run with it.

He really should be used to it at this point

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, every court in history has disagreed with you, but run with it.

Courts have gotten things wrong before on big constitutional issues. I think Roberts will keep it the same if for no other reason his legacy. Also, people love to throw out about the 2A that the Founders never envisioned machine guns. Well, I doubt the framers of the 14th envisioned 15-20 million people crossing our borders in the last few years or the establishment of birth tourism agencies in China which take the children back to their country who absolutely do not have an allegiance to the US. Times change and while the Constitution can stay the same it doesn't mean like with the Heller ruling there can't be limits.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Courts have gotten things wrong before on big constitutional issues. I think Roberts will keep it the same if for no other reason his legacy. Also, people love to throw out about the 2A that the Founders never envisioned machine guns. Well, I doubt the framers of the 14th envisioned 15-20 million people crossing our borders in the last few years or the establishment of birth tourism agencies in China which take the children back to their country and absolutely not having an allegiance to the US. Times change and while the Constitution can stay the same it doesn't mean like even with the Heller ruling there can't be limits.

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

The Constitution is a contract among the Federal Government and the states. Contracts are given the plain meaning of the language - intent only matters if language is ambiguous. This is not.

the stupid really just gets worse every day.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

Imagine if Obama sat in on a Scotus ruling to try and pressure them to revoke 2A. You'd hear the RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEing from space.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

The Constitution is a contract among the Federal Government and the states. Contracts are given the plain meaning of the language - intent only matters if language is ambiguous. This is not.

They can't say on one hand the text means what it means and we can't change it yet we'll change everything about the 2nd. I don't think the SG did a good job yesterday, but again, either there are limits based on time and changes or there aren't. If we can't limit things based on time the gov needs to drop the tax stamp for class III.

41 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Thats mixing up two different things.

25 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Courts have gotten things wrong before

Well folks, he may be inconceivably retarded, but it seems he still knows that L is coming anyways, no matter how much he kicks and screams about it.

26 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the stupid really just gets worse every day.

Liehard's unique mix of retardation and racism is kind of entertaining at least.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Such a stupid take by Diehard. I wonder where he read that mess.

Likely Laura Loomers Twitter feed, he consistently mimes her takes.

36 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

The Constitution is a contract among the Federal Government and the states. Contracts are given the plain meaning of the language - intent only matters if language is ambiguous. This is not.

Trumps thinking isnt that nuanced, while most of the people around him are playing checkers and chess, hes still trying to figure out the rules to Tic Tac Toe.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

And the 2A didn't say cans or class III or mag limits.

You’re exactly right. Which is why as I’ve always argued that any substantial change in gun laws in this country requires an amendment to the constitution. Glad we agree.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

You’re exactly right. Which is why as I’ve always argued that any substantial change in gun laws in this country requires an amendment to the constitution. Glad we agree.

We do on that, but it hasn't been the case or what they ruled in Heller.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

We do on that, but it hasn't been the case or what they ruled in Heller.

Huh? In Heller the supreme court ruled that DC's ban on handguns violated the 2nd amendment.

17 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Huh? In Heller the supreme court ruled that DC's ban on handguns violated the 2nd amendment.

And allowed states to make restrictions and wasn't unlimited.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

You’re exactly right. Which is why as I’ve always argued that any substantial change in gun laws in this country requires an amendment to the constitution. Glad we agree.

I agree with a caveat and that is that gun ownership isn't binary like citizenship. 2A is a real candidate for slippery slope but there is a reason for that.

19 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

And allowed states to make restrictions and wasn't unlimited.

Aaaaand what does that have to do with this current case? The first amendment prohibits the government from putting you in jail for your speech, but that doesn't mean you can go into a crowded movie theatre and yell fire without consequence. What any of this has to do with the current case before the SC, I have no idea.

I really can't believe that there is even this much debate about what is obviously and very clearly a no-brainer answer. If you want to change the 14th amendment, you must do so via adding a new amendment to the constitution. You can't overrule a constitutional amendment via executive order. Period. End of story. That's really all there is to it.

5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I really can't believe that there is even this much debate about what is obviously and very clearly a no-brainer answer. If you want to change the 14th amendment, you must do so via adding a new amendment to the constitution. You can't overrule a constitutional amendment via executive order. Period. End of story. That's really all there is to it.

Yep, it is that simple

13 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I really can't believe that there is even this much debate about what is obviously and very clearly a no-brainer answer. If you want to change the 14th amendment, you must do so via adding a new amendment to the constitution. You can't overrule a constitutional amendment via executive order. Period. End of story. That's really all there is to it.

look at who is debating it, that explains it all.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yep, it is that simple

The whole argument of this case boils down to, "All 3 branches of the government have actually been misinterpreting the 14th amendment from the time of its passage in 1868 until now. 150+ years of misinterpretation and so that's why we can just clarify this via executive order and claim that the 14th amendment only applies to the children of lawful permanent residents, which is a classification that didn't even exist in 1868 when the 14th amendment was written. " It's absolutely effing laughable. Only someone as dumb as Trump could have thought of something so stupid and only his followers are so blinded by being in this cult to not see it.