Opinion Article: Don’t Freak Out When We Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case

[martybegan]

Have you persuaded Marener? Worse, has he persuaded you?

Nope. But I like getting my point across.

Why are you on this board at all then?

 

[Robert W]

Nope. But I like getting my point across.

Why are you on this board at all then?

Did you get your point across? Marener seems to be a SOB.

A function I hope to perform and get agreement is the Democrats are a danger to our country. I think you agree.

 

[martybegan]

Did you get your point across? Marener seems to be a SOB.

A function I hope to perform and get agreement is the Democrats are a danger to our country. I think you agree.

I make my point, watch him flail for a few pages, then stop responding.

 

[Robert W]

I make my point, watch him flail for a few pages, then stop responding.

I decided to limit my comments to him and IMG and others. He sure does flail.

 

[BackAgain]

I argue with some very stubborn shitlibs (and a few who maybe aren’t technically libs at all). It doesn’t matter how solid my logic is or how well I support the claims of alleged “facts” which relate to the topic. They just ignore both facts and logic.

In their little minds, of course, it seems clear they would say basically the same about me. I dispute that. But that doesn’t matter to them and their welded-shut very closed minds.

So why we post is usually not dependent on persuading anybody else. Instead, it is often simply an effort to deny their false factual assertions or dispute their attempts at “logic.”

When I deal with asshats like the dainty or his similarly idiotic shitlib pals, I don’t expect to persuade them of anything. But maybe, once in a while, some other person might get it.

 

[Marener]

So A law abiding citizen with no felony record is an automatic threat to public safety? Bullshit.

As for the 14th, The law has already clarified in the case of children of diplomats that they aren't under US jurisdiction thereof.

A law extending that to children of illegals and those with tourist visas would accomplish what we need to do going forward. The only thing it couldn't do is make it retroactive to before the signing of the law due to ex post facto.

SCOTUS decides what the language of the constitution means, not the legislature.

The legislature can’t “clarify” the language of the 14th amendment. They can try, but if SCOTUS disagrees with the “clarification”, then the law is unconstitutional.

 

[Robert W]

I argue with some very stubborn shitlibs (and a few who maybe aren’t technically libs at all). It doesn’t matter how solid my logic is or how well I support the claims of alleged “facts” which relate to the topic. They just ignore both facts and logic.

In their little minds, of course, it seems clear they would say basically the same about me. I dispute that. But that doesn’t matter to them and their welded-shut very closed minds.

So why we post is usually not dependent on persuading anybody else. Instead, it is often simply an effort to deny their false factual assertions or dispute their attempts at “logic.”

When I deal with asshats like the dainty or his similarly idiotic shitlib pals, I don’t expect to persuade them of anything. But maybe, once in a while, some other person might get it.

I enjoy words of wisdom from Ronald Reagan, such as the following.

REAGAN CRITICIZES DEMOCRATS IN SPEECH AT A G.O.P. DINNER

President Reagan, in a speech here tonight, attacked what he termed the ''liberal leaders'' of the Democratic Party for favoring ''a bargain-basement military'' and for trying ''to protect every lord and fiefdom in the Federal bureacracy.'' In some of the toughest language he has used since the failure of talks last week aimed at working out a bipartisan agreement on the budget, Mr. Reagan told 2,800 Republican contributors, each of whom paid $1,000 to attend a fund-raising dinner, to ignore the Democratic assertions that the Republicans are ''the party of the rich.'' ''You know, that isn't true,'' said Mr. Reagan. ''We're the party that wants to see an America in which people can still get rich.'' Mr. Reagan's speech, made at a black-tie dinner at the Washington Hilton Hotel, came as Republicans were finding themselves deeply divided in Congress on how to proceed on the budget.

 

[Robert W]

SCOTUS decides what the language of the constitution means, not the legislature.

The legislature can’t “clarify” the language of the 14th amendment. They can try, but if SCOTUS disagrees with the “clarification”, then the law is unconstitutional.

Do you believe illegal alien parents have illegal alien childen?

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS decides what the language of the constitution means, not the legislature.

The legislature can’t “clarify” the language of the 14th amendment. They can try, but if SCOTUS disagrees with the “clarification”, then the law is unconstitutional.

Actually the legislature in some cases clarifies how to apply said Constitutional concepts applies via law.

The Prohibition amendment said that alcohol is being banned, but it took the Volstead Act to actually ban it.

 

[Marener]

Actually the legislature in some cases clarifies how to apply said Constitutional concepts applies via law.

They can decide how to apply the language, but they can’t redefine it. At the end of the day, the court decides what the language means, not the legislature.

The Prohibition amendment said that alcohol is being banned, but it took the Volstead Act to actually ban it.

It takes legislation to actually enforce the prohibition, which is exactly what the 18th amendment says in section 2. This doesn’t do anything to support your case.

 

[martybegan]

They can decide how to apply the language, but they can’t redefine it. At the end of the day, the court decides what the language means, not the legislature.

It takes legislation to actually enforce the prohibition, which is exactly what the 18th amendment says in section 2. This doesn’t do anything to support your case.

It wouldn't be redefining "under the jurisdiction thereof, it would be how to apply it.

 

[Robert W]

They can decide how to apply the language, but they can’t redefine it. At the end of the day, the court decides what the language means, not the legislature.

It takes legislation to actually enforce the prohibition, which is exactly what the 18th amendment says in section 2. This doesn’t do anything to support your case.

When the Supreme court agrees with Trump, does it annoy you to claim the court is wrong?

 

[Robert W]

It wouldn't be redefining "under the jurisdiction thereof, it would be how to apply it.

The Supreme court has corrected itself several times.
Many times, in fact, 236 times.

 

[Robert W]

They can decide how to apply the language, but they can’t redefine it. At the end of the day, the court decides what the language means, not the legislature.

It takes legislation to actually enforce the prohibition, which is exactly what the 18th amendment says in section 2. This doesn’t do anything to support your case.

 

[Marener]

It wouldn't be redefining "under the jurisdiction thereof, it would be how to apply it.

You’re trying to be cute.

The meaning of the phrase determines who it applies to. Not the legislature.

To try and exclude illegal aliens, they have to redefine the phrase.

 

[Robert W]

You’re trying to be cute.

The meaning of the phrase determines who it applies to. Not the legislature.

To try and exclude illegal aliens, they have to redefine the phrase.

What state do you practice law in?

 

[Anathema]

Why?

How about because citizenship should be about more than where one is born. That’s why I don’t believe in birthright citizenship for ANYONE. Not even my family, which has been here for close to 400 years.

Citizenship should be determined at age of maturity through proving one is willing and capable of being an asset to the country, not a liability and loyalty to that country abd its core ideology above other interests.

 

[BackAgain]

When the Supreme court agrees with Trump, does it annoy you to claim the court is wrong?

There’s a question he can’t answer.

 

[Robert W]

SCOTUS decides what the language of the constitution means, not the legislature.

The legislature can’t “clarify” the language of the 14th amendment. They can try, but if SCOTUS disagrees with the “clarification”, then the law is unconstitutional.

236 times the SCOTUS reversed itself.

 

[BackAgain]

236 times the SCOTUS reversed itself.

One of my favorite examples is how the SCOTUS eventually repudiated the facially dishonest and radically illogical claim of “separate but equal.”