Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Kondor3]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

 

[Correll]

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

So- as long as he isn't caught- he hasn't broken any laws?

Illegal aliens are caught all the time- and charged with crimes all the time.

Hence- subject to the jurisidiction.

The VAST MAJORITY are not caught and not charged, despite committing a crime with ever breath they draw of American Air.

Thus, not subject.

 

[Correll]

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

Scores of thousands of illegals are in prison.

200,000 plus were deported.

Just shut up if you can't be honest.

OUt of well over ten million here.

Not subject.

And, no, I won't be shutting up anytime soon.

 

[Correll]

The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.

The Court can only respond to a legal challenge.

If Congress passed say a law saying that children born to illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens- the Supreme Court by itself could do nothing.

Someone would have to file suit against Congress on constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the matter.

Which would take libs about 1 second to do.

As would real conservatives and true libertarians.

True libertarians, maybe, at least the Open Border Madmen.


Real Conservatives? Hell no.

 

[Correll]

Anyone who says, "If he escapes and manages to hide in the vast slums of LA, he is not subject to the Law.," is an idiot. He is subject to law; he just has not been caught yet.

That's like making the stupid argument that citizen criminals on the run from the law are not subject to the law.

11 million criminals are not hiding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll, "subject" is not what you describe.

You are wrong. As usual.

You are not mainstream. That will never change.

And Trump won't be President. You may, just maybe, get Cruz, who look sane in comparison to Trump.

 

[Wildman]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

 

[Correll]

Correll, "subject" is not what you describe.

You are wrong. As usual.

You are not mainstream. That will never change.

And Trump won't be President. You may, just maybe, get Cruz, who look sane in comparison to Trump.

Words mean whatever we want them to mean. You libs taught us that.

Trump is training HIllary in the polls by a meager 6 points.

That is doable.

The GOP, before the US becomes a Third World Nation, might have one more President in it, and Trump could be that President.

And yes, I know I am not mainstream.

Mainstream is thinking that it is radical and insane and racist to want to enforce the law.

 

[jillian]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

there is no need for clarification. if you were born here, you are a citizen.

 

[jillian]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

 

[Correll]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

there is no need for clarification. if you were born here, you are a citizen.

I think there is a need for clarification.

And any clarification that does not meet my approval does not count.

 

[Correll]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

If the mommy goes back to Mexico and tells them the kid was born while she was out of the country and would like a Mexican Birth Certificate, do you think they will give her one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

If the mommy goes back to Mexico and tells them the kid was born while she was out of the country and would like a Mexican Birth Certificate, do you think they will give her one?

Who cares? And it has nothing to do with the OP. What you don't like is immaterial. It does not matter.

 

[Correll]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

If the mommy goes back to Mexico and tells them the kid was born while she was out of the country and would like a Mexican Birth Certificate, do you think they will give her one?

Who cares? And it has nothing to do with the OP. What you don't like is immaterial. It does not matter.

I care. It has plenty to do with the OP with regards to whether the child is considered the citizens of this nation or some other.

What I like is completely material if enough other people agree, and repealing Birthright Citizenship is fairly popular.

And could become more so, if the change viewpoint gets a strong voice, like Trump, to be heard over the din of the Lib Media.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

If the mommy goes back to Mexico and tells them the kid was born while she was out of the country and would like a Mexican Birth Certificate, do you think they will give her one?

Who cares? And it has nothing to do with the OP. What you don't like is immaterial. It does not matter.

I care. It has plenty to do with the OP with regards to whether the child is considered the citizens of this nation or some other. What I like is completely material if enough other people agree, and repealing Birthright Citizenship is fairly popular. And could become more so, if the change viewpoint gets a strong voice, like Trump, to be heard over the din of the Lib Media.

Very few people agree with you, as you well know, and there is no indication that is going to change. Trump, if the nominee, will cause the government to go Dem, and that is good for nobody, other than the office holders.

 

[Correll]

if the parents are illegals, so are the ******* kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

If the mommy goes back to Mexico and tells them the kid was born while she was out of the country and would like a Mexican Birth Certificate, do you think they will give her one?

Who cares? And it has nothing to do with the OP. What you don't like is immaterial. It does not matter.

I care. It has plenty to do with the OP with regards to whether the child is considered the citizens of this nation or some other. What I like is completely material if enough other people agree, and repealing Birthright Citizenship is fairly popular. And could become more so, if the change viewpoint gets a strong voice, like Trump, to be heard over the din of the Lib Media.

Very few people agree with you, as you well know, and there is no indication that is going to change. Trump, if the nominee, will cause the government to go Dem, and that is good for nobody, other than the office holders.

last time I checked support for my position was running at 47%.

That is hardly "very few".

Trump is the most likely Republican to win.

His strong pro-US policies on Trade and Immigration can appeal to Working and Middle CLass dems and give them a reason to cross party lines.

An Establishment Republican will certainly lose now, and by giving in on Amnesty will make sure no Republican ever wins again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

47% of the GOP is about 14% of the electorate.

End of story. Trump's continued candidacy guarantees a Dem sweep of government.

Are you a democratic black flag plant here?

 

[Correll]

47% of the GOP is about 14% of the electorate.

End of story. Trump's continued candidacy guarantees a Dem sweep of government.

Are you a democratic black flag plant here?

Your self serving assumption that I was referring to the percentage support inside the GOP is incorrect.

Trump is the current candidate most likely to give Working CLass and Middle CLass dems a reason to cross party lines.

I have given my reasons for that. Simply stating your disagreement without addressing my reasons is not debate, but a Logical Fallacy and maybe even propaganda.

Oh, and ending with a personal accusation of dishonesty?! Nice touch.

If you were a paid democratic black flag plant. Ironically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your self serving assumption that I was referring to the percentage support inside the GOP is incorrect.

Trump is the current candidate most likely to give Working CLass and Middle CLass dems a reason to cross party lines.

I have given my reasons for that. Simply stating your disagreement without addressing my reasons is not debate, but a Logical Fallacy and maybe even propaganda.

Oh, and ending with a personal accusation of dishonesty?! Nice touch.

If you were a paid democratic black flag plant. Ironically.

Everything your write is a self serving appeal, my friend. Trump does not appeal across political lines, regardless of Working and Middle Class. Nothing indicates that.

I have addressed your reasons clearly and cogently in the past, and I have no need to do it again.

I asked a question and you took it personally. Some guilt, perhaps, on your part.

If your desire is to guarantee a dem win, you are certainly on the right path.

 

[Syriusly]

[

...You don't like that- well push for changing the Constitution.

Too much fuss. Far easier to have SCOTUS revisit the matter; relegating a new Amendment to the 'fall-back' position in the matter.

Such an important issue that you think changing the Constitution would be 'too much fuss'?

Almost no cases make it to the Supreme Court- there is virtually no way of ensuring that the Supreme Court would even consider the matter, let alone rule the way you hope for.