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

[jacksonlamb]

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

This is a meaningless question. A rejection of Trump's case has nothing to do with any false or fake 'new category of natural born U.S citizenship?" because there is none now.

 

[jacksonlamb]

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

I gave you the gist of the 14th Amendment above. Get over it. The denial of the case, which is inevitable, is because there is no new creation of levels of citizenship because the ruling in the 14th makes anchor babies natural.

 

[Jets]

The SC did not create a new category. The premise is an argument from fallacy.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

These unelected judges serve for life and answer to no one

They can and often do make new laws on the fly

 

[johnwk]

These unelected judges serve for life and answer to no one

They can and often do make new laws on the fly

Our Supreme Court is not the maker of the law, and its members take an oath of office "to support this Constitution. . . " which is the supreme law of the land.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

 

[Mac-7]

Our Supreme Court is not the maker of the law, and its members take an oath of office "to support this Constitution. . . " which is the supreme law of the land.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Its not supposed to be, but often is

And almost always even liberals have the majority

 

[johnwk]

Its not supposed to be, but often is

And almost always even liberals have the majority

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

I believe I am correct in saying, there is no Supreme Court case under which it was called upon to give an opinion on the question: “Are the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who broke our law upon their entry into the United States and gave birth, natural-born United States citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment as it was understood by its crafters and the people who voted for it?”

My understanding of our system's separation of powers indicates that extending the cherished and valuable privilege of natural-born, United States citizenship to a new identifiable group of persons as was done under the Snyder Act for Indians, is a political subject matter and decision exclusively, by the terms of our Constitution, entrusted to the people's elected representatives, their Congress and President, and not within the delegated powers of members on our Supreme Court when acting if their official capacity.

And that is why I believe our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons, is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide.

.
.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

I believe I am correct in saying, there is no Supreme Court case under which it was called upon to give an opinion on the question: “Are the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who broke our law upon their entry into the United States and gave birth, natural-born United States citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment as it was understood by its crafters and the people who voted for it?”

My understanding of our system's separation of powers indicates that extending the cherished and valuable privilege of natural-born, United States citizenship to a new identifiable group of persons as was done under the Snyder Act for Indians, is a political subject matter and decision exclusively, by the terms of our Constitution, entrusted to the people's elected representatives, their Congress and President, and not within the delegated powers of members on our Supreme Court when acting if their official capacity.

And that is why I believe our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons, is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide.

You remind me of someone at a Cleveland uni who wrote well like this on such subjects. He, too, was wrong, like you, but I enjoy reading you both.

 

[johnwk]

You remind me of someone at a Cleveland uni who wrote well like this on such subjects. He, too, was wrong, like you, but I enjoy reading you both.

"wrong"?

You offer no rebuttal

 

[jacksonlamb]

"wrong"?

You offer no rebuttal

It's obvious.

 

[johnwk]

It's obvious.

Your deflection and obfuscation is noted.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your deflection and obfuscation is noted.