Freedomisneverfree
Diamond Member
- Jul 28, 2021
- 9,177
- 12,769
- 2,288
ICE is on the west side of Cleveland today! Lots of several ICE vehicles and blacked out vans...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It refutes the claim made that this was some liberal judge.
Are you still confused?
ICE is on the west side of Cleveland today! Lots of several ICE vehicles and blacked out vans...
ICE is on the west side of Cleveland today! Lots of several ICE vehicles and blacked out vans...
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 14thOr a convention of the states.
But no amendment is needed. A proper interpretation of the 14th is all we need.
Did I say you claimed that?I never claimed that.
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
Did I say you claimed that?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).Link that case
No. Can you answer the question now or are you completely lost?You're confused?
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.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
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center
National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Arkconstitutioncenter.org
Post 189 two above this oneThe 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.
Why do I need somebody to tell me a case is perfect precedent? Is that how you operate? Who tells you what to think?Who told you that case was perfect precedent?
Why do I need somebody to tell me a case is perfect precedent? Is that how you operate? Who tells you what to think?
No shit. Why didn’t you answer my questions?You are not me.
I assumed you were pretending that such was the holding in Wong. Kim Ark, but that was a different fact pattern. So, you’re wrong.Post 189 two above this one
All according to plan.Here we go…this will now get interesting as this issue works its way to the high court.
The US District Court and the Ninth Circuit have to follow that precedent .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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center
National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Arkconstitutioncenter.org
My skank? I’m not dating you nor would I ever date a dark person…PERIOD.your skank is deported?