Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They can't overturn the amendment, but they can interpert it according to it legislative intent and set a precedence.
Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?
See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!
I hope you paid better attention in law school than you are giving the impression here. I am only a lefty because your perception is limited from below the far right horizon.
Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing were the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down. That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice.
As you say, all amendments are not absolute, so, no, you don't need an assault rifle.
Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
They can't overturn the amendment, but they can interpert it according to it legislative intent and set a precedence.
The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
We need a Constitutional Amendment to make it right.
No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?
See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!
I hope you paid better attention in law school than you are giving the impression here. I am only a lefty because your perception is limited from below the far right horizon.
Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing were the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down. That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice.
As you say, all amendments are not absolute, so, no, you don't need an assault rifle.
You are putting words in my mouth I have never stated any part of an amendment can be struck down. Amendment can only be struck down by another amendment (aka prohibition).
However, amendment aren't absolute and can be interpreted differently!
But I will agree I don't see the birthright clause going anywhere or getting a narrow interpretation, it will remain boardly applied!
Remove all American'ts from Government work.Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
We need a Constitutional Amendment to make it right.
I happen to agree, because a SCOTUS ruling could always be overturned, but a ruling would at least temporarily settle things and is easier to get than an Amendment is.
SCOTUS is the only way, Intense, because you can never get your super majority. And, as a matter of fact and of law, the doctrine of judicial review has been a done deal for a very long time. I do believe Brown was exactly right, Roe I am not so sure about. However, your beliefs or mine will not decide anything of worth here.
The simple fact is you don't have the numbers, you don't have the courts, ergo you don't have nuffin.
Our Forefathers designed the Amendment process as the primary vehicle of change. I know you are in denial, I accept that. Indoctrination is a hard thing to overcome. In the end, there is no peace without justice Jake. Without balance, fairness, truth, we all lose. Seek first what is right grasshopper. If in doubt, pray for vision and clarity of purpose. The blind make poor guides Jake.
