Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Boss]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

In fact... There is a reason that the 14th had to be passed to make slaves and their children legal citizens. This is explicitly Congress enacting their power to legislate on the matter of citizenship... the SCOTUS could not have done it... nor could the President. Even after it was ratified, it still did not give SCOTUS the authority to grant citizenship to Native Americans... why? Because it's not in the power of the Judicial or Executive to determine citizenship, it is an enumerated power of Congress.

The Plyler case that keeps being raised is a more recent case about due process. It's essentially the Court admitting it has no standing but because the policies of the executive and legislative fail to act in granting or denying citizenship, their only default can be to confer citizenship in the absence of policy. They did not rule to override an action by Congress. They CAN'T!

 

[Syriusly]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

In fact... There is a reason that the 14th had to be passed to make slaves and their children legal citizens. This is explicitly Congress enacting their power to legislate on the matter of citizenship... the SCOTUS could not have done it... nor could the President. Even after it was ratified, it still did not give SCOTUS the authority to grant citizenship to Native Americans... why? Because it's not in the power of the Judicial or Executive to determine citizenship, it is an enumerated power of Congress.!

Congress actually passed legislation in 1866 similar to the 14th Amendment- but then decided that legislation was not strong enough- so they passed the 14th Amendment and sent it to the states for Ratification.

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution- and Congress cannot change the Constitution without the Amendment process.

The Supreme Court is the branch of the government which interprets the Constitution- not Congress, or the Executive.

 

[Redfish]

Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?

don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.

I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.

You were the one who said you didn't see the term 'anchor babies' in Wong Kim Ark- I was pointing out that they are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment either.

If you do not think that the language of the 14th Amendment fits today's circumstances, our Constitution provides a method to correct it. We don't just get to pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it is because you think the writers didn't anticipate a problem.

amazing, this BS coming from someone who constantly attacks the "words" of the 2nd amendment. We shouldn't take that one literally, but we have to take the 14th literally, you are a hypocrite like most liberals.

When have I attacked the words of the 2nd Amendment?

Please- provide that quote. I am very curious. Sometimes I am forgetful, but I can't remember posting about the 2nd Amendment in years.

Or are you just lying- again?

Still waiting Redfish- or is your silence just an admission that you were lying- again?

grow up, my silence was due to eating dinner and having a very good martini.

look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right. to continue to blather on and on about it is a waste of time and effort.

 

[Syriusly]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

The Plyler case that keeps being raised is a more recent case about due process. It's essentially the Court admitting it has no standing but because the policies of the executive and legislative fail to act in granting or denying citizenship, their only default can be to confer citizenship in the absence of policy. They did not rule to override an action by Congress. They CAN'T!

Wow- you can't mis-state Plyler much more than that.

Once again- the text of the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And Wong's commentary on jurisdiction:

It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the states of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'

And finally Plyler v. Doe:

I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.

 

[Syriusly]

don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.

I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.

You were the one who said you didn't see the term 'anchor babies' in Wong Kim Ark- I was pointing out that they are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment either.

If you do not think that the language of the 14th Amendment fits today's circumstances, our Constitution provides a method to correct it. We don't just get to pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it is because you think the writers didn't anticipate a problem.

amazing, this BS coming from someone who constantly attacks the "words" of the 2nd amendment. We shouldn't take that one literally, but we have to take the 14th literally, you are a hypocrite like most liberals.

When have I attacked the words of the 2nd Amendment?

Please- provide that quote. I am very curious. Sometimes I am forgetful, but I can't remember posting about the 2nd Amendment in years.

Or are you just lying- again?

Still waiting Redfish- or is your silence just an admission that you were lying- again?

grow up, my silence was due to eating dinner and having a very good martini.

look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right. to continue to blather on and on about it is a waste of time and effort.

I don't have a problem with us disagreeing.

I am challenging you to back up your claim

this BS coming from someone who constantly attacks the "words" of the 2nd amendment.

Did you intentionally lie- or were you just mistaken?

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope, just implied it will be struck down. Weird

No. And making such a claim is just as stupid as the rabid right wingers who insist that Obama thinks there are 57 states.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

The reason one must go back to 1898 to find the case law regarding birthright citizenship is simply because it is the quintessential and LANDMARK case on the matter within that topical area. Those very same determinations derived from US v. Wong are codified in Title 8 Section 1401, Nationals and citizens of United States at birth!

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

 

[Boss]

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

Yes.... Open your Civics books to The American Civil War and passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This is where Congress explicitly "disregarded the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process."

 

[Boss]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

The reason one must go back to 1898 to find the case law regarding birthright citizenship is simply because it is the quintessential and LANDMARK case on the matter within that topical area. Those very same determinations derived from US v. Wong are codified in Title 8 Section 1401, Nationals and citizens of United States at birth!

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

Wong was not about illegal immigrants. So it's like you pointing to some court case where a citizen's right to bear arms was protected by the courts and arguing this somehow gives Charley Manson the right to buy firearms... These people are criminals who have broken the law. Wong doesn't apply to criminal fugitives of justice.

 

[danielpalos]

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

Yes.... Open your Civics books to The American Civil War and passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This is where Congress explicitly "disregarded the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process."

extenuating circumstances are just that; can you cite where our federal Congress exceeded their authority?

 

[danielpalos]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

The reason one must go back to 1898 to find the case law regarding birthright citizenship is simply because it is the quintessential and LANDMARK case on the matter within that topical area. Those very same determinations derived from US v. Wong are codified in Title 8 Section 1401, Nationals and citizens of United States at birth!

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

Wong was not about illegal immigrants. So it's like you pointing to some court case where a citizen's right to bear arms was protected by the courts and arguing this somehow gives Charley Manson the right to buy firearms... These people are criminals who have broken the law. Wong doesn't apply to criminal fugitives of justice.

People break the law every day. "Jaywalking" across an imaginary State line is only a misdemeanor.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

The reason one must go back to 1898 to find the case law regarding birthright citizenship is simply because it is the quintessential and LANDMARK case on the matter within that topical area. Those very same determinations derived from US v. Wong are codified in Title 8 Section 1401, Nationals and citizens of United States at birth!

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

US v. Wong was not about illegal immigrants. So it's like you pointing to some court case where a citizen's right to bear arms was protected by the courts and arguing this somehow gives Charley Manson the right to buy firearms... These people are criminals who have broken the law. Wong doesn't apply to criminal fugitives of justice.

Did I write anything about "illegal immigrants? Hell No! Did I write anything about Charles Manson or the right to bear arms? Hell No! Did I write anything about criminals? Hell No! You're dodging to avoid addressing what I did write!

In a previous I debunked all of the same shit you are using now to avoid addressing the point! Wong was ACCUSED of being a foreign subject by the Customs authorities in San Francisco in 1895 when he was returning to the US from China. He had to get a writ of habeas corpus to take the guv'ment to court to gain reentry! US v. Wong is the settled Law of the Land. Nothing you can write will change that so live with it!

You're wrong as hell but you don't have the character or the sense of honor to admit your error so you obfuscate like a child of 9 who got caught doing something they shouldn't have. Man up to the truth, child!

 

[Syriusly]

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

Nope. There is a real good reason you have to go back to 1890 to find your case laws. This is unlike a lot of other issues the SCOTUS has gotten over recent years. This is an enumerated power of one of the three branches. Do we need to refresh our understanding of government civics again?

The reason one must go back to 1898 to find the case law regarding birthright citizenship is simply because it is the quintessential and LANDMARK case on the matter within that topical area. Those very same determinations derived from US v. Wong are codified in Title 8 Section 1401, Nationals and citizens of United States at birth!

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

Wong was not about illegal immigrants. So it's like you pointing to some court case where a citizen's right to bear arms was protected by the courts and arguing this somehow gives Charley Manson the right to buy firearms... These people are criminals who have broken the law. Wong doesn't apply to criminal fugitives of justice.

Wong doesn't apply to criminal fugitives of justice.

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Like every child born in the United States- except the children of diplomats- and including the children whose parents happen to be in the United States without legal permission.

 

[Boss]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

 

[Boss]

IF Congress wants to change the law, only a fool would say they can't. But if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

Yes.... Open your Civics books to The American Civil War and passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This is where Congress explicitly "disregarded the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process."

extenuating circumstances are just that; can you cite where our federal Congress exceeded their authority?

Hey jackwagon, your circle jerk buddy commented that only a fool would believe congress could overturn a SCOTUS ruling that was law of the land. I cite an obvious example of just that... and you pop off with the question of whether they overstepped their authority. Obviously, they didn't. So obviously, Congress can indeed disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process. Because that is exactly what they did, and it wasn't the only time. Some of you must have FAILED HS Civics.

 

[Syriusly]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Plyler v. Doe clearly states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Of course their children- the ones born here and born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

 

[Boss]

Did I write anything about "illegal immigrants? Hell No! Did I write anything about Charles Manson or the right to bear arms? Hell No! Did I write anything about criminals? Hell No! You're dodging to avoid addressing what I did write!

Oh, I did address what you said:

...if a fool says Congress can disregard the Law of the Land as reviewed and decided by SCOTUS by altering or modifying those lawful determinations set via judicial review by the Court through the legislative process, then that fool has shown the world he is just that...a fool who thinks it is a simple application of HS Civics!

In 1865, the "law of the land as determined by SCOTUS ruling" was that negro slaves were property and not citizens with Constitutional rights. Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution to change the law established by SCOTUS ruling.

So did you fail HS civics or were you asleep in class that day?

In 1923, Congress acted again to make Native Americans born on US soil, American citizens. Now you would THINK that the SCOTUS could have done this by applying the OBVIOUS intention of the 14th amendment... but I guess the justices weren't as sharp as today's liberal! Back then, the court had found that the 14th didn't apply to Native Americans born on US soil... so Congress passed an act.

And if you have time... We can go through at least a dozen more cases where Congress defied the glorious Supreme Court and passed laws which contravened their decisions. Now if you don't want to live in a society with trilateral government, you need to get Bernie or Hillary to speak up on this. I think much of the country would be interested to know you think we should be a nation ruled by a Supreme Court instead of a representative republic with three co-equal branches.

 

[Boss]

Wong applies to persons who are U.S. citizens by being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right... which illegal aliens AREN'T!

Plyler v. Doe clearly states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Of course their children- the ones born here and born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

*sigh* Plyler was about due process rights! You have due process rights on the basis of being a human being.

A Texas statute denying free public education to undocumented immigrants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because discrimination on the basis of illegal immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The case has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. It was a 5-4 decision that, in my opinion, was judicial overreach. That was also the dissenting opinion because this was the job of Congress. You cling to a footnote in the majority opinion, which wasn't the basis of the case.

 

[paperview]

"Plyler construed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires every State to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Texas cannot deny free public school education to undocumented children, when it provides such education to others.

To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe.

But although the Court splintered over the specific question of public education, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike.

And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that

“[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[39]

The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”[40]

The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”[41] And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas." Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25...l-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/#_ftn42

 

[Boss]

"Plyler construed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires every State to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Texas cannot deny free public school education to undocumented children, when it provides such education to others.

To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe.

But although the Court splintered over the specific question of public education, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike.

And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that

“[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[39]

The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”[40]

The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”[41] And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas." Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

No one is saying that illegal aliens are not "within the jurisdiction" of the US.... but that is NOT the requirement of the 14th. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is much more than "within the jurisdiction" and it has a completely different context.

I realize there are "constitutional scholars" everywhere, discussing the ins and outs of this specific issue and there is a wide range of opinions. But the Supreme Court has never had a case ruling on the specific issue of citizenship solely by birth right. That's never happened. All you can do is piece together an argument based on rulings in unrelated cases.

Now you may be right or wrong, I don't know, the case hasn't been brought. Even if it is, the Court can be wrong... they've been wrong numerous times in history, it wouldn't be a first. But I'll be damned if you're going to run around proclaiming this is somehow "settled law" when it isn't!