S.C. should keep its nose out of the birthright citizenship case, which is a political matter

[jacksonlamb]

Yup. We know all about your love affair and embracing anchor babies:



American citizens are being made into taxed slaves to support the needs of illegal entrants and their offspring.

No, they are not. What a goofy thing to say.

 

[Doc7505]

Yep. Doesn’t mean that the ruling will be correct, only that the method of achieving this was wrong. Just like in Roe, the only way to achieve a lasting change is by amendment.

<~~~~~~~~~~>
Meanwhile, Democrats will never allow the a bill to pass the Senate allowing an amendment to the Constitution to correct the situation.

 

[jacksonlamb]

<~~~~~~~~~~>
Meanwhile, Democrats will never allow the a bill to pass the Senate allowing an amendment to the Constitution to correct the situation.

Then do that then wasting all of our time this way.

 

[White 6]

Naysaying vs my facts and documentation

I guess you will have to wait for the ruling, but from the questions asked, I doubt you will like how they rule, as they will rule on what it says, not what you might like it to be.

 

[johnwk]

I guess you will have to wait for the ruling, but from the questions asked, I doubt you will like how they rule, as they will rule on what it says, not what you might like it to be.

I am not interested in waiting for the ruling. My interest is establishing truth and facts for those who are interested, with regard to the issue at hand.

Additionally, I follow the fundamental rules of Construction, unlike our modern Supreme Court who uses their office of public trust to make the constitution mean what the think it should mean or want it to mean.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate and in harmony with our system of law is when its opinion is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I am not interested in waiting for the ruling. My interest is establishing truth and facts for those who are interested, with regard to the issue at hand,

Then you have to wait, because they are the experts, not you.

 

[johnwk]

Then you have to wait, because they are the experts, not you.

Your snarky remark is noted.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your snarky remark is noted.

It's fact, no snark intended. You are not the authority. Only SCOTUS is, and you will have to accept it, as I have decisions I did not like.

 

[johnwk]

It's fact, no snark intended. You are not the authority. Only SCOTUS is, and you will have to accept it, as I have decisions I did not like.

No. I don't have to accept a majority opinion as being legitimate which is not in harmony with the text of our constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[jacksonlamb]

No. I don't have to accept a majority opinion as being legitimate which is not in harmony with the text of our constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Then you do not understand what it means to being an American.

If you can get an Amendment through, then I will have to accept it.

Until then, it is what it is.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No. I don't have to accept a majority opinion as being legitimate which is not in harmony with the text of our constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Yea you kind of do, because you can't do a damn thing about it.

 

[johnwk]

Yea you kind of do, because you can't do a damn thing about it.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

 

[Zincwarrior]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

Blah blah blah

 

[jacksonlamb]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

Good. You go on being eternally vigilant and you may catch the one that gets through. It's not this one, though.

 

[citygator]

Considering a preponderance of historical evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress indicates the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, I’m having great difficulty imagining, under what legal reasoning can our Supreme Court members grant the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship to the mentioned offspring?

For our Supreme Court to create this new priviledged category of legally recognized citizenship, would be doing so without the people’s consent, or the approval of the people’s elected representatives. In fact, doing so would make a mockery of and nullify why our founders provided Article 5, in our Constitution (its amendment process) by which a willing and affirmative consent of the people is require to be obtained for such a significant recognition to be added to our Constitution.

Seems to me, by the explicit terms of our Constitution, Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are granted exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment’s, Section 5, Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are delegated the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the 14th Amendment. Not our Supreme Court.

Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and its “Republican Form of Government”, should they not apply the reasoned approach found in Luther v. Borden, and acknowledge that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President?

If our S.C. members do not follow Luther v. Borden, and decides to omnipotently create a new category of U.S. citizenship __ a hallowed and most precious privilege ___ would that not meet the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison?

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Finally, our system provides elections in order for the people to adopt new public policy, which they did by electing Trump as their President. Are we to forget, the good people of the United States lived under the Biden Administration’s open-border policy for four years. If a majority on our Supreme Court decides to create a new category of citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have also nullified the very reason for which our Founders provided elections, and they will be undoing what a majority of voters voted for when electing Trump as their new President.

You idiot… that is exactly why a Supreme Court exists… cuz your dumbass is just making shit up.
The Supreme Court wouldn’t be “creating” anything, they’d be applying the plain text of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”

That was already settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark—over a century ago.

So this isn’t tyranny, new law, or ignoring elections. It’s just enforcing the Constitution as written.

They’re not asking the Court to invent citizenship, they’re asking it to apply a 150-year-old constitutional rule. If you don’t like that rule, the answer isn’t to ignore the Constitution, it’s to amend it.

 

[johnwk]

Good. You go on being eternally vigilant and you may catch the one that gets through. It's not this one, though.

You remind me of the "peaceniks" and "pacifists" of the 1960's.

Our founders knew how to deal with tyrants.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You remind me of the "peaceniks" and "pacifists" of the 1960's.

Our founders knew how to deal with tyrants.

View attachment 1246087

You want to murder peaceniks?

 

[johnwk]

You idiot…

Your adolescent name calling is noted.

 

[johnwk]

You want to murder peaceniks?

Your reading comprehension skills are wanting.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Your reading comprehension skills are wanting.

You posted peaceniks and then a giblet.