Repeal, And Replace: The 14th Ammendment.

[Vastator]

With a more conservative, traditional, originalist Supreme Court on the horizon; is now the time to cut to the heart of the immigration crisis that has plagued our nation for decades?
If Conservatives maintain, if not outright expand their power in the legislature; has there ever been a better time to eliminate birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals?

 

[TNHarley]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

 

[Vastator]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

They'll hear the sure to come case. That will absolutely make its way to the USSC. There is simply no question about it.

 

[TNHarley]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

They'll hear the sure to come case. That will absolutely make its way to the USSC. There simply no question about it.

How? The process is protected by the Constitution.
Some bedwetter might get triggered by it, but i doubt they would even see it. There is nothing to argue. It is what it is.

 

[Vastator]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

They'll hear the sure to come case. That will absolutely make its way to the USSC. There simply no question about it.

How? The process is protected by the Constitution.
Some bedwetter might get triggered by it, but i doubt they would even see it. There is nothing to argue. It is what it is.

So is the presidents right to restrict immigration. Guess where that ended up, despite his Constitutionally unquestionable authority on the matter?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

The phrase "under the jurisdiction thereof" has been the primary source of contention. A case could arise in which the Court could determine that the interpretation employed regarding that phrase is in error (it is) and end its use.

Repeal/replace would not be necessary.

 

[DarkFury]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

They'll hear the sure to come case. That will absolutely make its way to the USSC. There simply no question about it.

How? The process is protected by the Constitution.
Some bedwetter might get triggered by it, but i doubt they would even see it. There is nothing to argue. It is what it is.

Not exactly, the law covers children born to American parents and first generation births. The issue of NON citizens giving birth in our country was never directly addressed. A NON citizen an illegal giving birth on this soil is LEGALLY still a ward of their country of birth. So just like YOUR birth in say Canada does NOT make you Canadian their birth here does NOT make them American.

 

[Vastator]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

They'll hear the sure to come case. That will absolutely make its way to the USSC. There simply no question about it.

How? The process is protected by the Constitution.
Some bedwetter might get triggered by it, but i doubt they would even see it. There is nothing to argue. It is what it is.

Not exactly, the law covers children born to American parents and first generation births. The issue of NON citizens giving birth in our country was never directly addressed. A NON citizen an illegal giving birth on this soil is LEGALLY still a ward of their country of birth. So just like YOUR birth in say Canada does NOT make you Canadian their birth here does NOT make them American.

Which is why a clear and consice rewrite is in order. That would stem the flow. And end any questions about whether, or not the children of lawbreaking invaders should stay.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It needs to be replaced for several reasons.

Substantive due process is bullshit.

 

[BS Filter]

No need to repeal or replace it, just replace the justices that abuse it for the leftist agenda.

 

[Natural Citizen]

With a more conservative, traditional, originalist Supreme Court on the horizon; is now the time to cut to the heart of the immigration crisis that has plagued our nation for decades?
If Conservatives maintain, if not outright expand their power in the legislature; has there ever been a better time to eliminate birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals?

It's the perfect opportunity to do it.

 

[Vastator]

With a more conservative, traditional, originalist Supreme Court on the horizon; is now the time to cut to the heart of the immigration crisis that has plagued our nation for decades?
If Conservatives maintain, if not outright expand their power in the legislature; has there ever been a better time to eliminate birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals?

It's the perfect opportunity to do it.

No doubt. The movement just needs some initiative. The measure would no doubt meet with brad support.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Misdirected Ruse "

* Searching For A Better Way *

No doubt. The movement just needs some initiative. The measure would no doubt meet with brad support.

What you meant to phrase is that citizenship at birth only for children of us citizens should be the policy .

It is already covered by the constitution by the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " that the children of illegals should be given citizenship to the country of their mother Illegal Immigrants Are Not Technically Within US Jurisdiction And Not Entitled To Equal Protection .

* Hidden Agendas *

Removing the wright to citizenship by birth in the us constitution is the only way to repeal roe v wade and the discontented subverts of the constitution have been raging against it since 1973 .

When would one become a citizen , when it is a zygote or an inchoate faeiouyt us , as clearly that precept is absurd ?

 

[Vastator]

" Misdirected Ruse "

* Searching For A Better Way *

No doubt. The movement just needs some initiative. The measure would no doubt meet with brad support.

What you meant to phrase is that citizenship at birth only for children of us citizens should be the policy .

It is already covered by the constitution by the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " that the children of illegals should be given citizenship to the country of their mother Illegal Immigrants Are Not Technically Within US Jurisdiction And Not Entitled To Equal Protection .

* Hidden Agendas *

Removing the wright to citizenship by birth in the us constitution is the only way to repeal roe v wade and the discontented subverts of the constitution have been raging against it since 1973 .

When would one become a citizen , when it is a zygote or an inchoate faeiouyt us , as clearly that precept is absurd ?

Your post is nonsense. Goodbye.

 

[mgh80]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with repeal/replacing a Constitutional amendment?

They'll hear the sure to come case. That will absolutely make its way to the USSC. There simply no question about it.

How? The process is protected by the Constitution.
Some bedwetter might get triggered by it, but i doubt they would even see it. There is nothing to argue. It is what it is.

Not exactly, the law covers children born to American parents and first generation births. The issue of NON citizens giving birth in our country was never directly addressed. A NON citizen an illegal giving birth on this soil is LEGALLY still a ward of their country of birth. So just like YOUR birth in say Canada does NOT make you Canadian their birth here does NOT make them American.

While I'm not for birth-right citizenship, the reason why it doesn't specifically mention it's only applicable to current citizens and legal immigrants is because the amendment was designed to protect freed slaves who were born in the US (who obviously didn't have constitutional protections while being enslaved). So you had slaves who were born in the US and weren't automatically granted citizenship, and the 14th was to protect them.

The amendment absolutely served its purpose in the past, but is being used and exploited in a way it was never intended to do.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Better Immigration Policy "

* How To Fix A Problem *

Your post is nonsense. Goodbye.

Whatever you say , lol .

us citizens are responsible for immigration .

A solution to deal with anchor babies by temporary visa immigrants can be solved by a similar suggestion for dealing with illegal immigration , REDUCE LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN by some proportion to compensate for the abuse of the system .