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.

12 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.

That's because you don't understand and Doc is with you. There isn't a law or amendment that isn't debatable. That's why we have a Supreme Court. First has been limited and debated. We talked about the 2A. There were no new amendments when states limited mag capacity, rifle limitations, yelling fire in a theater, limits to protests, etc. All of those were clear rights, but not absolute, and not beyond debate or adaptation to our time. It comes down to the spirit and intent. So you can say the end all you want but you would be showing ignorance.

Forgetting illegals in this instance with the 14th you kept saying earlier soldiers and diplomats. Ok, so why did the framers of the 14th include them? They didn't want people loyal to another government having citizenship granted to their children who would be taken home and loyal to another country. It's ridiculous to believe the founders would have been good with a friend of a diplomat visiting in their day, having a child, and returning home with American citizen babies. That clearly goes against their intent and the spirit of the law. In that same spirit it's further lunacy to believe they would be good with 500 companies in China running a birthing tour agency coming here like those diplomats, having a baby, and getting a citizen out of it while returning home due to loyalty to their home country and not living in the US. The times change but the Constitution stays the same. We can keep and bear arms, but there are limits and adaptations. The 14th doesn't tie a millstone around us nor does it require an amendment to change.

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.

Things change all the time. Roe had one ruling a few decades ago that changed recently.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

You just are ignorant.

🤣

Just now, Alpha_TATEr said:

🤣

Whatever beta.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Whatever beta.

don't walk away mad, just walk away. 🤣

1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

don't walk away mad, just walk away. 🤣

I'm laughing at how weak you are.

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

There isn't a law or amendment that isn't debatable.

Figure of speech of course. Having said that, this one was dead on arrival despite the fact that they went thru the motions.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Figure of speech of course. Having said that, this one was dead on arrival despite the fact that they went thru the motions.

Well, I've said I didn't agree with the approach of the SG. He shouldn't have gone in there trying to eat the entire elephant knowing how Roberts tends to rule protecting his legacy and having compromises like Heller. They would have been better attacking the Visa birth agency angle to start using the spirit of the diplomat exclusion and then circled back around after establishing it's not land based.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Well, I've said I didn't agree with the approach of the SG. He shouldn't have gone in there trying to eat the entire elephant knowing how Roberts tends to rule protecting his legacy and having compromises like Heller. They would have been better attacking the Visa birth agency angle to start and then circled back around after establishing it's not land based.

You can harp on about legacy all you want but from a legal standpoint there really is/was no debate. Politically it is a different story but then SCOTUS isn't supposed to be political now is it?

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Well, I've said I didn't agree with the approach of the SG. He shouldn't have gone in there trying to eat the entire elephant knowing how Roberts tends to rule protecting his legacy and having compromises like Heller. They would have been better attacking the Visa birth agency angle to start and then circled back around after establishing it's not land based.

Wild that they F'd it up with such rock-solid legal standing and of course the crack team that Trump always assembles.

8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm laughing at how weak you are.

no, you're not. you're reeing because you got called on using horrible grammar while calling someone else ignorant.

then to top it off because you're so pissed over it, you don't notice the obvious joke of me quoting a motley crue song.

1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

no, you're not. you're reeing because you got called on using horrible grammar while calling someone else ignorant.

then to top it off because you're so pissed over it, you don't notice the obvious joke of me quoting a motley crue song.

What grammar? Honestly, I don't pay much attention to you so I'm not even sure what you are talking about with that or the song, beta

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Wild that they F'd it up with such rock-solid legal standing and of course the crack team that Trump always assembles.

Look at how unconstitutional the Dems used to be

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Look at how unconstitutional the Dems used to be

Oh no, not Harry Reid.

If Harry Reid did it then it must have strong legal standing.

8 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

no, you're not. you're reeing because you got called on using horrible grammar while calling someone else ignorant.

then to top it off because you're so pissed over it, you don't notice the obvious joke of me quoting a motley crue song.

Lol wait you meant "just are ignorant"??? 😆 It's called an absolute assertion. You can Google it after you turn in your grammar police badge, beta. Hilarious 😂

25 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

That's because you don't understand and Doc is with you. There isn't a law or amendment that isn't debatable. That's why we have a Supreme Court. First has been limited and debated. We talked about the 2A. There were no new amendments when states limited mag capacity, rifle limitations, yelling fire in a theater, limits to protests, etc. All of those were clear rights, but not absolute, and not beyond debate or adaptation to our time. It comes down to the spirit and intent. So you can say the end all you want but you would be showing ignorance.

Forgetting illegals in this instance with the 14th you kept saying earlier soldiers and diplomats. Ok, so why did the framers of the 14th include them? They didn't want people loyal to another government having citizenship granted to their children who would be taken home and loyal to another country. It's ridiculous to believe the founders would have been good with a friend of a diplomat visiting in their day, having a child, and returning home with American citizen babies. That clearly goes against their intent and the spirit of the law. In that same spirit it's further lunacy to believe they would be good with 500 companies in China running a birthing tour agency coming here like those diplomats, having a baby, and getting a citizen out of it while returning home due to loyalty to their home country and not living in the US. The times change but the Constitution stays the same. We can keep and bear arms, but there are limits and adaptations. The 14th doesn't tie a millstone around us nor does it require an amendment to change.

The only person who doesn't understand in this discussion is you. The 14th amendment was written at a time when immigrants were coming to this nation in droves on a daily basis. No visa system. No lottery. No caps. No vetting system to try to find out which of these immigrants coming in might still be loyal to their home country. The US population in 1870 was 38 million. The amount of people that immigrated to the US that year was about 380,000. 10% of the entire US population. That would be akin to 34 million people immigrating to the US this year and every year thereafter.

So yes, it was absolutely written with the intent that the children of those immigrants would become citizens at birth. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

Now, times have changed and now we have a visa system and immigration caps. So, if you want to change the way that someone becomes a citizen to reflect our changes in immigration laws that have happened since 1868, then you must do so through a constitutional amendment. Because that's how our government works.

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

The only person who doesn't understand in this discussion is you. The 14th amendment was written at a time when immigrants were coming to this nation in droves on a daily basis. No visa system. No lottery. No caps. No vetting system to try to find out which of these immigrants coming in might still be loyal to their home country. The US population in 1870 was 38 million. The amount of people that immigrated to the US that year was about 380,000. 10% of the entire US population. That would be akin to 34 million people immigrating to the US this year and every year thereafter.

So yes, it was absolutely written with the intent that the children of those immigrants would become citizens at birth. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

Now, times have changed and now we have a visa system and immigration caps. So, if you want to change the way that someone becomes a citizen to reflect our changes in immigration laws that have happened since 1868, then you must do so through a constitutional amendment. Because that's how our government works.

Wrong, stunod 😂