Res Ipsa wrote:Again, what you are trying to argue is that Congress can limit Constitutional birthright citizenship for the child by passing an immigration law. Good luck with that.
But, please proceed to post a link to any Supreme Court case that disagrees with me.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
and im arguing exactly what i say...your insistence for repackaging my words into what you want them to say doesn't prove you correct.
still waiting on you, by the way.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Res Ipsa wrote:Again, what you are trying to argue is that Congress can limit Constitutional birthright citizenship for the child by passing an immigration law. Good luck with that.
But, please proceed to post a link to any Supreme Court case that disagrees with me.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
and im arguing exactly what i say...your insistence for repackaging my words into what you want them to say doesn't prove you correct.
still waiting on you, by the way.
That case doesn't disagree with Res Ipsa and textbooks. The nutbar theory you are relying tries to note that the case dealt with a legal immigrant rather than a illegal one to infer that illegal immigration is still on the table.
The Court rejected the argument you are making here 9-0.
But you don't need to reach to the authority of Supreme Court interpretation here as it's about as straightfoward of an issue as it gets. We do not lack quotes from the amendments authors, proponents and opponents about what they thought the text meant. We don't lack for traditional public understanding of the amendment. The amendment has a plain English meaning that is coherent to those stated aims.
Res Ipsa wrote:Again, what you are trying to argue is that Congress can limit Constitutional birthright citizenship for the child by passing an immigration law. Good luck with that.
But, please proceed to post a link to any Supreme Court case that disagrees with me.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
and im arguing exactly what i say...your insistence for repackaging my words into what you want them to say doesn't prove you correct.
still waiting on you, by the way.
lol! Feel free to explain how United States v Wong Kim ark in any way opens the gate to limiting constitutional birthright citizenship since you definitely read it and actually understand what you are trying to say.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
This thread is the typical lefty retardation that reigns around here. Nobody here is a legal scholar. Nobody here is qualified to assert any kind of certain outcome. There are very smart and very credible people on both sides of this debate. I linked two of them on page one. I have no idea how this plays out, but I do think it will go to Supreme Court. RI says that's impossible, because he's such a smarty pants or something, I guess we'll see.
I have no doubt various courts will knock it down, just as they did the travel ban. That is the whole purpose of this, to force the debate. The idea that this is merely a midterm stunt is quite idiotic, in my opinion. You people suck at politics. Did anybody actually click the link and watch the Axios interview? Unless the Axios journalist is in on this, it seemed very clear that Trump was surprised. This journalist scooped something that Trump had planned for later. In case you hadn't noticed, the voting is already underway. I think it's over 25% or something around there have ALREADY VOTED. Yeah, sorry, I'm not seeing a midterm stunt. This is for real.
Y'all can laugh and ridicule all you want, that's what you do, but you're clowns. Over and over you are proven to be clowns. You did this with all the previous EOs, and they went to Supreme Court, and Trump won. It's amazing to me how immensely egotistical you can be. Trump is the President of the United States. Who are you? You really think he doesn't maybe have more than a few legal minds at his disposal? You damned Mormon discussion board nitwits think you're so smart. In the end, you may turn out to have been correct on whatever the final decision is. But it won't be because you had the first damn clue what you were talking about... it will be because there were only two possible outcomes and by dumb luck you guessed right. Or, you got your talking points from someone who was right.
I for one have no idea what the actual outcome will be. I like to troll by stating what I'd like to see it turn out to be, but do I really know? No. I've never been to law school, much less claim to be a legal scholar on this particular issue. From lawyer friends of mine I've chatted with, this is fairly complex. And as with anything, politics are a factor. Is Supreme Court beyond politics? Do either liberals or conservatives believe that? I mean if it's decided 5-4 either way, does that mean either one of us were right? I would say no.
Unless it's a unanimous decision against Trump, I don't think you can parade your big brain around. If even one Supreme Court justice says, "uh, yeah, the 14th amendment was not meant to apply to illegals," then I'd say you're not so smart as you make yourself out to be. Even one voice in such a direction would show it's a credible argument. Whoever that justice is, he or she sure knows a hell of a lot more than any of us. I'm not going to act like I know way more about the law than that person. Are you? Well, of course you are.
Anyway, we'll see what happens. I have no idea how it turns out. Someone like Roberts who might be expected to vote in the more conservative direction could end up turncoating because he doesn't want to be the guy that upsets the apple cart. Like with ACA and the individual mandate. And that's fine, if it ends up that way, it ends up that way. Unlike leftists, who are unwilling to honor the results of the election, I'll stand by whatever the ruling is.
As a matter of principle, nothing to do with legal precedence and all that mumbojumbo, I firmly disagree with birthright citizenship. Trump is right that virtually nobody else does that. It's idiotic. And there is nothing racist whatsoever in wanting to bring that stupidity to an end. If we allow birthright citizenship to remain, then we need to get rid of the border patrol, congress should officially vote for full open borders, basically all immigration law should just be stripped. Whoever wants to come over here, damned welcome. Free for all. Don't give a damn. To all the people who waited in line, respected our laws and did things the right way - well Screw you, you're a chump. You should have just swam across. Because we're a bunch of pussies and will give you all our crap.
Res Ipsa wrote:Again, what you are trying to argue is that Congress can limit Constitutional birthright citizenship for the child by passing an immigration law. Good luck with that.
But, please proceed to post a link to any Supreme Court case that disagrees with me.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
and im arguing exactly what i say...your insistence for repackaging my words into what you want them to say doesn't prove you correct.
still waiting on you, by the way.
Ok, cut and paste the language from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that you claim disagrees with me.
I didn't repackage your words. An alien on U.S. soil is "illegal" only if Congress passes a law that says so. The premise of the argument you are making is that the congress can override the plain language of the 14th amendment, which contains no exception for children of "illegal aliens." As I say, good luck with that.
Waiting on me for what?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Geez, Im not sure I have seen someone handling being wrong so pathetically, your life must just be one embarrassment after another considering how often you are wrong and how much of your personal esteem rides on the Trump presidency. Triggered incel is triggered.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Water Dog wrote:This thread is the typical lefty retardation that reigns around here. Nobody here is a legal scholar. Nobody here is qualified to assert any kind of certain outcome. There are very smart and very credible people on both sides of this debate.
This is very much in kind with your arguments on the climate change thread.
Water Dog wrote:Unless it's a unanimous decision against Trump, I don't think you can parade your big brain around. If even one Supreme Court justice says, "uh, yeah, the 14th amendment was not meant to apply to illegals," then I'd say you're not so smart as you make yourself out to be. Even one voice in such a direction would show it's a credible argument. Whoever that justice is, he or she sure knows a hell of a lot more than any of us. I'm not going to act like I know way more about the law than that person. Are you? Well, of course you are.
If one person Donald Trump appointed to the Supreme Court agrees with Donald Trump, then that proves Donald Trump has a respectable argument is one hell of an argument.
People aren't appointed to the Court on the the basis of their propensity to get things right. It's not a merit-based appointment.
EAllusion wrote:This is very much in kind with your arguments on the climate change thread.
What's your point? This is even more subjective than climate change. You can't prove human caused warming, nor can you prove, objectively, the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. It's a subjective debate, entirely dependent upon the legal approach. Beyond that it's kind of a waste of time because y'all are miserable people to interact with.
