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

[martybegan]

Sure it is.

We arrest undocumented immigrants all the time, so they are clearly under our jurisdiction.

It isn't about the immigrants, it's about the babies, who are born in areas under the jurisdiction of the US.

We can detain and deport diplomats, and they are not under our jurisdiction. We just can't prosecute them without the approval of their host country due to international agreements.

Again, we move the line from just Diplomats, to illegals and people here on tourist visas. Only citizens and green card holders get the benefits of passing birthright citizenship to their children. (either parent)

 

[martybegan]

The problem is Wong explained what "under the jurisdiction thereof" in its argument. You and others don't seem to realize that fact.

I am betting you will be sorely disappointed in the ruling.

Only in the matter of parents who were here legally at the time of their arrival, and someone born here, who left and came back during a time several Exclusion acts were passed. Those acts are no longer in effect, and new immigration laws have been passed since then.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No contradiction, because it would be explicit for that specific case.

Drawing lines is what laws are all about, I fail to see your issue with this.

Do two people share your account? You go from posting like a 60 year old to posting like some 25 year old moron.

It's the ******* Constitution and must be explicit in ALL cases! Remember, you were talking about an amendment. You cannot say it only applies to the change of the 14th amendment and not the entire Constitution.

I go by the text of the Constitution and prior precedent. You seem to have the liberal's view that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must constantly be reinterpreted based on current belief systems.

You would have the SCOTUS think that freedom of religion no longer applies to Muslims because some Muslims do bad things.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Only in the matter of parents who were here legally at the time of their arrival, and someone born here, who left and came back during a time several Exclusion acts were passed. Those acts are no longer in effect, and new immigration laws have been passed since then.

There's that ex post facto coming into view again!

 

[martybegan]

It's the ******* Constitution and must be explicit in ALL cases! Remember, you were talking about an amendment. You cannot say it only applies to the change of the 14th amendment and not the entire Constitution.

I go by the text of the Constitution and prior precedent. You seem to have the liberal's view that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must constantly be reinterpreted based on current belief systems.

You would have the SCOTUS think that freedom of religion no longer applies to Muslims because some Muslims do bad things.

Why not?

Where does it limit what Amendments can do?

If you can get the votes either by the legislative or Article V process to exclude Islam from the 1st amendment, what's stopping anyone?

 

[Mac1958]

Just like with several other issues, the GQP risks screwing up and giving away all their power to the Dems -- not necessarily because they're wrong on an issue, but because of THE BONEHEADED WAY THEY APPROACH THEM.

Approach a problem like a caveman, and you'll turn off a lot of people. "There's more than one way to skin a cat", goes the old (if creepy) saying. But no. Not for MAGA.

Any reasonably intelligent adult should be able to understand that. I don't understand why it has to be so goddamn complicated.

 

[martybegan]

There's that ex post facto coming into view again!

Supreme Court Decisions aren't law, so ex post facto doesn't apply to them.

 

[martybegan]

Just like with several other issues, the GQP risks screwing up and giving away all their power to the Dems -- not necessarily because they're completely wrong on the issues, but because of THE BONEHEADED WAY THEY APPROACH THEM.

Approach a problem like a caveman, and you'll turn off a lot of people. "There's more than one way to skin a cat", goes the old (if creepy) saying. But no. Not for MAGA.

Any reasonably intelligent adult should be able to understand that. I don't understand why it has to be so goddamn complicated.

And the award for longest and most useless meandering non-response goes too.... MAC1958!

Now do your passive-aggressive "thanks" drive by to complete your schtick.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why not?

Where does it limit what Amendments can do?

If you can get the votes either by the legislative or Article V process to exclude Islam from the 1st amendment, what's stopping anyone?

Amendments can only change the original document, not make exceptions.

The 18th and 21st amendments are good examples.

The main article of the 21st is as simple as it gets.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

No exceptions, and no bullshit.

Common sense applies. Perhaps if you are running short, you could search Amazon for new supply!

 

[martybegan]

Amendments can only change the original document, not make exceptions.

The 18th and 21st amendments are good examples.

The main article of the 21st is as simple as it gets.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

No exceptions, and no bullshit.

Common sense applies. Perhaps if you are running short, you could search Amazon for new supply!

Making exceptions is changing the original document.

That the 18th did it that way doesn't preclude what I am saying.

That you don't like it doesn't make it not real.

I see the 25 year old idiot version of you is posting today.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Supreme Court Decisions aren't law, so ex post facto doesn't apply to them.

You just said the laws were no longer in effect! The Constitution is still in effect as far as I know. You are arguing in circles every time I show your lack of logic and understanding, you go further down the rabbit hole.

 

[martybegan]

You just said the laws were no longer in effect! The Constitution is still in effect as far as I know. You are arguing in circles every time I show your lack of logic and understanding, you go further down the rabbit hole.

Please show me where the Chinese Exclusion act in question from Ark is still being applied.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Please show me where the Chinese Exclusion act in question from Ark is still being applied.

It isn't, but that is not why he had birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which if I am not mistaken is still applicable. There you go with that circular argument again!

Is the 14th Amendment as understood in the Wong Kim Ark case still relevant? That is the question, and the answer is yes.

Was Wong a US citizen because he was born here? Yes.

Thank you very much for your attention in this matter.

 

[martybegan]

It isn't, but that is not why he had birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which if I am not mistaken is still applicable. There you go with that circular argument again!

Is the 14th Amendment as understood in the Wong Kim Ark case still relevant? That is the question, and the answer is yes.

Was Wong a US citizen because he was born here? Yes.

Thank you very much for your attention in this matter.

The answer should be no, and I think the main opinion of the SC will tell either congress they need to figure it out, or just say that a an Executive Order doesn't work. Only the 3 hard left Justices will have a concurrence saying an amendment is required.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The answer should be no, and I think the main opinion of the SC will tell either congress they need to figure it out, or just say that a an Executive Order doesn't work. Only the 3 hard left Justices will have a concurrence saying an amendment is required.

I think you are overestimating several conservative justices and they will punt it! There is no Constitutional authorization for his EO as it directly conflicts with the 14th Amendment and past practice.

 

[martybegan]

I think you are overestimating several conservative justices and they will punt it! There is no Constitutional authorization for his EO as it directly conflicts with the 14th Amendment and past practice.

Punting is just saying the EO isn't the way to do it. Explaining would not be punting.