Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

[johnwk]

I would like participants in the thread to keep to our system’s fundamental principles of law, and apply the acknowledged rule of “interpretation” where applicable, as stated by our U.S. Senate which follows:


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. . . . A construction which should give the phrase “a republican form of government” a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution in any other particular. This is the rule of interpretation adopted by all commentators on the Constitution, and in all judicial expositions of that instrument. . .” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872)

It would also be helpful if supportive documentation is provided when opinions of law are stated. Remember, we are a nation governed by “the rule of law” as adopted by the people.

 

[1srelluc]

 

[johnwk]

.

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

 

[jacksonlamb]

johnwk, your concept of citizenship does not exist.

We are born on American soil, we are citizens unless Mom and or Dad were foreign diplomats.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk, your concept of citizenship does not exist.

We are born on American soil, we are citizens unless Mom and or Dad were foreign diplomats.

You forgot to substantiate your assertion with documentation as mentioned in the OP.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I would like participants in the thread to keep to our system’s fundamental principles of law, and apply the acknowledged rule of “interpretation” where applicable, as stated by our U.S. Senate which follows:


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. . . . A construction which should give the phrase “a republican form of government” a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution in any other particular. This is the rule of interpretation adopted by all commentators on the Constitution, and in all judicial expositions of that instrument. . .” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872)

It would also be helpful if supportive documentation is provided when opinions of law are stated. Remember, we are a nation governed by “the rule of law” as adopted by the people.

Why do we have to worship an elitist document written in the horse-and-buggy era, just like Fundamentalist Christofascists worship the Bible?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why do we have to worship an elitist document written in the horse-and-buggy era, just like Fundamentalist Christofascists worship the Bible?

Why do you not want restrictions on the federal government?

 

[jacksonlamb]

You forgot to substantiate your assertion with documentation as mentioned in the OP.

I have done it several times in this thread, and your "evidence" is false argumentation.

 

[johnwk]

Why do we have to worship an elitist document written in the horse-and-buggy era, just like Fundamentalist Christofascists worship the Bible?

Is that your well-reasoned and insightful argument against adhering to the terms and conditions set for in the Constitution of the United States which the States and people therein agreed to?

 

[jacksonlamb]

It's a fact that "the terms and conditions set for in the Constitution of the United States which the States and people therein agreed to" support anchor babies.

Those who oppose it want to radically chang eit.

 

[johnwk]

It's a fact that "the terms and conditions set for in the Constitution of the United States which the States and people therein agreed to" support anchor babies.

Those who oppose it want to radically chang eit.

Your unsubstantiated assertions are noted.

 

[task0778]

.

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

NO. But the Congress might be if the standards are not discriminatory according to the 14th amendment regarding anchor babies. As it is now, some of our civil rights are different for non-citizens, true? Deporting a US citizen is somewhat more difficult than an illegal alien. Interesting to see what the SC says.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your unsubstantiated assertions are noted.

As are yours.

 

[struth]

I would like participants in the thread to keep to our system’s fundamental principles of law, and apply the acknowledged rule of “interpretation” where applicable, as stated by our U.S. Senate which follows:


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. . . . A construction which should give the phrase “a republican form of government” a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution in any other particular. This is the rule of interpretation adopted by all commentators on the Constitution, and in all judicial expositions of that instrument. . .” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872)

It would also be helpful if supportive documentation is provided when opinions of law are stated. Remember, we are a nation governed by “the rule of law” as adopted by the people.

By SC do you mean the United States Supreme Court? If so, not they aren’t, but they also don’t follow the rules of the senate on how to interpret the Constitution or laws in general

 

[jacksonlamb]

SCOTUS is the interpeter of the Constitution: not johnwk or struth. Pretty sure I am right on that.

 

[struth]

SCOTUS is the interpeter of the Constitution: not johnwk or struth. Pretty sure I am right on that.

When did I say otherwise?

 

[jacksonlamb]

When did I say otherwise?

I am glad you agree, then. Talk to johnwk.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why do you not want restrictions on the federal government?

Wonks Wearing Wigs from the Ignorant 18th Century

That's a myth, as shown time and time again. Only the government's three-branch poison oak can tell us what it means. We can complain all we want, but we can't make them listen.

Petitions that would, with enough signatures, let us vote on laws, not just in Candy-Date pretty-personality pageants.

Like Christofascists, Constitution-bangers want to boss the majority around by self-identifying with an imaginary Higher Power.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

By SC do you mean the United States Supreme Court? If so, not they aren’t, but they also don’t follow the rules of the senate on how to interpret the Constitution or laws in general

Nine Clowns with Gavels and Gowns

Nor does SCROTUS have to. The "Just Us"'es interpreted the Constitution as giving themselves the sole right to interpret the Constitution. That outraged Jefferson, who had also been intentionally kept out of participating in the Constitutional Convention.

 

[struth]

Nine Clowns with Gavels and Gowns

Nor does SCROTUS have to. The "Just Us"'es interpreted the Constitution as giving themselves the sole right to interpret the Constitution. That outraged Jefferson, who had also been intentionally kept out of participating in the Constitutional Convention.

Well the idea of what a judicial branch does, did that

What other branch is suppose to do that?

Jefferson was pissed because they smacked his admin down in Malbury v Madison

Jefferson’s didn’t wait on him, Madison. I have no doubt Jefferson was pissed at him…when he got back.