Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

There are no slaves today

The 14th was intended for freed slaves in 1865 and only slaves
Sorry, but that's not what the clear text of the 14th says.
If they only w anted it to apply to freed slaves, they would have said so.
 
Sorry, but that's not what the clear text of the 14th says.
If they only w anted it to apply to freed slaves, they would have said so.
It says whatever 5 members of the SC say it says

And the current meaning can be changed
 
You're trying to turn legal citizens into illegal aliens. JFC, can you even remember what happened 40 seconds ago?

This is like talking to a child.
No I am not

If I could make it retroactive I would

But thats not possible

The change would apply only to future births
 
It says whatever 5 members of the SC say it says

And the current meaning can be changed
Not if it conflicts with the "clear text", which is the standard that the conservative justices claim they live by, and by which their prior decisions were based.

If they were to invoke a different standard, it would cause everybody to lose faith in the supreme court. And would open the court to all kinds of appeals for cases based on the two different constitutional interpretation standards.
 
There are those who cannot grasp what the claim of “birthright citizenship” means.

But we do know this. If you’re born here AND OWE ALLEGIANCE TO JUST THIS NATION, you’re a U.S. citizen.

Did I make that “and” too small?
 
No I am not

If I could make it retroactive I would

But thats not possible

The change would apply only to future births
Future births?

I believe after giving citizenship to the children of non-citizens after the civil war, they knew it would also apply to future births.
 
Yes, it has. Extremely easy instructions. Why do some of you so-called conservatives never seem to understand this case decided birthright citizenship about 130 years ago?


I learned this case in educational law. I thought you were a lawyer!
Which is why it does periodically come up for reconsideration.

Regardless of what you learned in some law related class, the fact is that the question has indeed come up again. For good reason.

If anyone truly believes that an amendment, designed to insure that freed slaves and black people in general were recognized as U.S. citizens, was ever intended to make the child of some illegal alien a U.S. citizen because of the mere location of the child’s birth being on U.S. soil, then they are going to see that belief get challenged.
 
As a citizen I can be compelled to serve in the military against my will

But the US does not have that power over illegal aliens or chinese tourists who just dropped in to visit the Grand Canyon and have an anchor baby
One has nothing to do with the other. Where is the draft mentioned in the Constitution since it did not exist until the Civil War? Your knowledge of history fails you yet again.
 
15th post
There are those who cannot grasp what the claim of “birthright citizenship” means.

But we do know this. If you’re born here AND OWE ALLEGIANCE TO JUST THIS NATION, you’re a U.S. citizen.

Did I make that “and” too small?
Where does it say that in the Constitution? Hint: It doesn't because you made it up.
 
Which is why it does periodically come up for reconsideration.

Regardless of what you learned in some law related class, the fact is that the question has indeed come up again. For good reason.

If anyone truly believes that an amendment, designed to insure that freed slaves and black people in general were recognized as U.S. citizens, was ever intended to make the child of some illegal alien a U.S. citizen because of the mere location of the child’s birth being on U.S. soil, then they are going to see that belief get challenged.
I said it has come up and the courts have smacked it right back down. Keep stretching and you might find a point somewhere, but it is isn't looking good.
 
Back
Top Bottom