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

[Chuz Life]

Lawyer makes Kurt Schlichter the point that we will likely lose the Birthright Citizenship case on procedural grounds, and this is just starting the fight.


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





So our first option is try to pass some laws via congress that can define "under the jurisdiction thereof" and clarify the situation, and the 2nd longer option is an amendment removing it.

You are probably right.

This SCOTUS is Constitutionally retarded.

 

[Hafar1014]

Get rid of this and start the deportations

 

[task0778]

It could be that the Supreme Court will punt the issue back to Congress, saying the Court should not create legislation that is Congress' responsibility. The SC should rule on what is legal and constitutional rather than what is in the country's best interests. It is Congress' job to do that.
That's how the Warren Court determined abortion rights that subsequently got overturned, as it should have.

 

[martybegan]

You are probably right.

This SCOTUS is Constitutionally retarded.

The 14th amendment wording leaves the opening.

Yes, the intent wasn't over immigrants, but they used too many vague words to limit it to the freedmen.

 

[Chuz Life]

The 14th amendment wording leaves the opening.

Yes, the intent wasn't over immigrants, but they used too many vague words to limit it to the freedmen.

The SCOTUS used to be smart enough to consider the context and even the "spirit" (deductive meaning) of the Constitution and the laws they are reading but it seems those days are gone.

If this court reads the 14th as saying illegal aliens have more of a right to U.S. citizenship than prenatal children have a right to personhood and the "equal protections" of our laws?

**** every single one of them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gem of the piece is wher Schitler says we should send pregnant foreign women to Gitmo so their babies won't be citizens.

Wow.

I mean. Effing Wow.

Sounds like a great idea.

The word would get around fast.

 

[JoeB131]

You are not to be trusted with owning a gun.

Well, the Army would disagree with you. My job in the service was 76Y30 - Armorer/Supply NCO.

I was trusted with ALL the guns.

 

[Zincwarrior]

We should just start locking up Democrat leaders in prison as accessories to the illegals RAPES and MURDERS. Pretty sure congress would pass legislation to end birthright SCAM citizenship then.

What would that have to do with babies being citizens? Asking for a friend.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The 14th amendment wording leaves the opening.

Yes, the intent wasn't over immigrants, but they used too many vague words to limit it to the freedmen.

The language is clear as day.

 

[JoeB131]

The SCOTUS used to be smart enough to consider the context and even the "spirit" (deductive meaning) of the Constitution and the laws they are reading but it seems those days are gone.

If this court reads the 14th as saying illegal aliens have more of a right to U.S. citizenship than prenatal children have a right to personhood and the "equal protections" of our laws?

**** every single one of them.

Chuzzy thinks Globby the fetus should have more rights than the woman he's inside, and more rights than people who are actually born.

"I'll do everything I can to protect you, until you are born, and you better not start asking for nothing!!!"

 

[JoeB131]

And bringing in and not assimilating replacements isn't a solution.

Europe is having the same problem, and they are trying to use the "bring in the immigrants" solution as you want to, and doing it terribly.

Really? Europe has greater prosperity than we have, more equality, and less crime.

 

[Robert W]

Well, the Army would disagree with you. My job in the service was 76Y30 - Armorer/Supply NCO.

I was trusted with ALL the guns.

That was when you accepted the 2nd Amendment you want demolished.

 

[Robert W]

Chuzzy thinks Globby the fetus should have more rights than the woman he's inside, and more rights than people who are actually born.

"I'll do everything I can to protect you, until you are born, and you better not start asking for nothing!!!"

Not more rights. Not less rights. Same rights as the Born.
How did you think as a Republican? See Joe, you see only one human. Nature proves there are two or more humans in this case.

 

[Leo123]

Lawyer makes Kurt Schlichter the point that we will likely lose the Birthright Citizenship case on procedural grounds, and this is just starting the fight.


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





So our first option is try to pass some laws via congress that can define "under the jurisdiction thereof" and clarify the situation, and the 2nd longer option is an amendment removing it.

Marxist Democrats have been using 'procedural' garbage to make viable cases against the go away for decades.

 

[Robert W]

Really? Europe has greater prosperity than we have, more equality, and less crime.

You base it on where you live, under Democrats. We know where Democrats run the state, things are worse than in Europe and also red states in the United States of America.

 

[Robert W]

The language is clear as day.

In cases like this one, I am pleased we have the present Supreme Court. At least the 3 biased justices will certainly want to keep things the same. But the 6 can see with fresh eyes and fresh reasoning.

 

[Robert W]

The SCOTUS used to be smart enough to consider the context and even the "spirit" (deductive meaning) of the Constitution and the laws they are reading but it seems those days are gone.

If this court reads the 14th as saying illegal aliens have more of a right to U.S. citizenship than prenatal children have a right to personhood and the "equal protections" of our laws?

**** every single one of them.

We have to correct the idea that when pregnant women show up, they burp out citizens. And not all who come here and burp kids are citizens anyway. There are exceptions.

 

[toobfreak]

Lawyer makes Kurt Schlichter the point that we will likely lose the Birthright Citizenship case on procedural grounds, and this is just starting the fight.

Of course. SCOTUS can only rule on interpreting existing law as it is written. They will likely kick it back to Congress that if congress wants citizenship better defined, they need to better define it first.

Logical arguments on how bad it is for America won't fly with the Judiciary, the only thing in our favor is the Indian Treaty of 1929 or whatever where Indians were given the vote, which implies that birthright does NOT intend to apply to everyone born here, but they may rule the Indians are an exception since they are in effect another nation.

Too bad the GOP is so screwed up and can't seem to even put their pants on to get anything done, so are forever always dependent on democrat votes.

 

[Robert W]

If we're going to do that NOW is the time because democrats probably have a better than 50/50 shot at winning back the House, even if it's only by a vote for two. If that happens, all bets are off.

The only people who poll lower than Trump are Democrats.

In short, Trump is not running but Democrats are and among themselves, they hate what Democrats are doing to the Government.

 

[Robert W]

Of course. SCOTUS can only rule on interpreting existing law as it is written. They will likely kick it back to Congress that if congress wants citizenship better defined, they need to better define it first.

Logical arguments on how bad it is for America won't fly with the Judiciary, the only thing in our favor is the Indian Treaty of 1929 or whatever where Indians were given the vote, which implies that birthright does NOT intend to apply to everyone born here, but they may rule the Indians are an exception since they are in effect another nation.

Too bad the GOP is so screwed up and can't seem to even put their pants on to get anything done, so are forever always dependent on democrat votes.

Just in the Senate and Senator Kennedy explained how Republicans can overrule the Senate Democrats.