Judge blocks Trumps EO to end birthright citizenship

Or a convention of the states.

But no amendment is needed. A proper interpretation of the 14th is all we need.
The Supreme Court has had a case on this. They ruled that the child of two non-citizens is a citizen per the constitution. So that avenue has been done. If that’s your pathway then it’s setX if you want it to change then amend the wording of the 14th
 
The Supreme Court has had a case on this. They ruled that the child of two non-citizens is a citizen per the constitution. So that avenue has been done. If that’s your pathway then it’s setX if you want it to change then amend the wording of the 14th

Link that case
 
Link that case
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
In this case, the Court held that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all persons born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The decision affirmed that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was a U.S. citizen by birthright.

 
The Supreme Court has had a case on this. They ruled that the child of two non-citizens is a citizen per the constitution. So that avenue has been done. If that’s your pathway then it’s setX if you want it to change then amend the wording of the 14th
The SCOTUS once said some shit about “separate but equal.” They also spoke about the Constitutional right of women to have abortions without a needs basis at any time.

Bad rulings get revisited sometimes.

Now, tell us the case name and give us the case citation you made reference to.

And n the interim, you’re still wrong.
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
In this case, the Court held that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all persons born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The decision affirmed that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was a U.S. citizen by birthright.


Who told you that case was perfect precedent?
 
The SCOTUS once said some shit about “separate but equal.” They also spoke about the Constitutional right of women to have abortions without a needs basis at any time.

Bad rulings get revisited sometimes.

Now, tell us the case name and give us the case citation you made reference to.

And n the interim, you’re still wrong.
Post 189 two above this one
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
In this case, the Court held that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all persons born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The decision affirmed that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was a U.S. citizen by birthright.

The US District Court and the Ninth Circuit have to follow that precedent .

SCOTUS will reverse US v Wong - read the dissenting opinion
 

Forum List

Back
Top