Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[BackAgain]

They are subject to its laws.

As i just noted, that’s one meaning of “jurisdiction.” You miss the point.

That is but one meaning of the word, “jurisdiction.” However,!it absolutely doesn’t seem to be the meaning the Amendment’s framers were discussing.

 

[Zincwarrior]

As i just noted, that’s one meaning of “jurisdiction.” You miss the point.

That is but one meaning of the word, “jurisdiction.” However,!it absolutely doesn’t seem to be the meaning the Amendment’s framers were discussing.

Court cases thereafter disagree with your assessment.

 

[Montrovant]

FALSE! Howard was the co-author of the 14th Amendment and these were his words >>
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Wanna talk about co-author, Ohio Representitive John Bingham ?
Bingham, would actually appear to endorse a narrower form of citizenship than Trump. As the Justice Department notes, Bingham stated that he would exclude from birthright citizenship children born to parents who owe “allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

In the same speech, Bingham left no doubt that he believed that citizenship should turn on the immigration or citizenship status of parents. But he goes further than Trump in suggesting that children born to citizens of any other country would be denied U.S. citizenship. “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen,” he asserts. Because a person owes allegiance to their country of citizenship, anyone who is a citizen of another country owes allegiance “to any foreign sovereignty,” which, according to Bingham, would bar their children from obtaining U.S. citizenship at birth.

Why yell false, then immediately confirm what I said?
I notice you’ve now started including Bingham in your posts, when you hadn’t mentioned him before.

 

[BackAgain]

Court cases thereafter disagree with your assessment.

Not really. The cases you seem to imagine disagree with my assessment universally don’t address the issue of birthright citizenship for kids of illegal aliens.

But it really doesn’t matter since neither one of us will be voting in the SCOTUS matter.
I don’t make any prediction. But I am not optimistic that the jurists will come down on the side of what the words actually mean.

In the interim, there is not a single letter in Our Constitution or its Amendments which grants any “citizenship” to the children born here of illegal aliens.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not really. The cases you seem to imagine disagree with my assessment universally don’t address the issue of birthright citizenship for kids of illegal aliens.

But it really doesn’t matter since neither one of us will be voting in the SCOTUS matter.
I don’t make any prediction. But I am not optimistic that the jurists will come down on the side of what the words actually mean.

In the interim, there is not a single letter in Our Constitution or its Amendments which grants any “citizenship” to the children born here of illegal aliens.

You should inform the court of your wisdom via amicus brief.

 

[jacksonlamb]

No. It’s not clear. You’re far too simplistic. .

As usual from you.

How do you figure that the offspring of two illegal alien Iranian terror cell members would owe any allegiance to America?

You are assuming that the kind of “jurisdiction” over a defendant (now) in a criminal case is the same as “jurisdiction” within the meaning understood by the framers of that amendment.

The historical record proves that the two meanings and the two uses of the term “jurisdiction” are not referencing the same thing.

It is clear, and you are far too complicated. You will lose 7-2 or 8-1.

 

[BackAgain]

You should inform the court of your wisdom via amicus brief.

I “should,” you maintain? Why’s that? You ridiculous little man.

 

[BackAgain]

It is clear, and you are far too complicated. You will lose 7-2 or 8-1.

What’s clear is that you are incapable of being reasoned with.

While it is obvious that the correct ruling may not get handed down, the arguments against birthright citizenship are the only ones that make sense.

You’ll never u destined what you won’t even contemplate.

And no. It’s not complicated at all.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I “should,” you maintain? Why’s that? You ridiculous little man.

This is true. These arguments were made and viewed with derision by SCOTUS.

 

[BackAgain]

This is true. These arguments were made and viewed with derision by SCOTUS.

The ridicule ought to be directed at those jurists by the American people for the Justices disregard of proper Constitutional law analysis.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The ridicule ought to be directed at those jurists by the American people for the Justices disregard of proper Constitutional law analysis.

No. Its plain. You are wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

No. Its plain. You are wrong.

No. It’s plain that you aren’t able to distinguish between right and wrong.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No. It’s plain that you aren’t able to distinguish between right and wrong.

But I can read the Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

... which did not include non-citizen children born in the US.

You might lose this 8-1 at SCOTUS.

8-1? Not likely.

Justice Alito is a sure vote. So is Justice Thomas - we just don't know if she told Clarence yet.

Likely 7-2 at least.

WW

 

[Zincwarrior]

8-1? Not likely.

Justice Alito is a sure vote. So is Justice Thomas - we just don't know if she told Clarence yet.

Likely 7-2 at least.

WW

7-2 agreed unless Alito dies first.

 

[BackAgain]

But I can read the Constitution.

But you don’t understand what you read.

 

[jacksonlamb]

What’s clear is that you are incapable of being reasoned with.

While it is obvious that the correct ruling may not get handed down, the arguments against birthright citizenship are the only ones that make sense.

You’ll never u destined what you won’t even contemplate.

And no. It’s not complicated at all.

I am so far better at logic than you as the sun out dazzles the moon.

You write the silliest stuff. Of course, I contemplated it after researching the arguments and follow the SCOTUS repeats of its hearings.

You are simply very dim.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The ridicule ought to be directed at those jurists by the American people for the Justices disregard of proper Constitutional law analysis.

No, little man, you are not superior on these matters to the Court.

 

[jacksonlamb]

No. It’s plain that you aren’t able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Your light continues to dim with every post.

 

[jacksonlamb]

8-1? Not likely.

Justice Alito is a sure vote. So is Justice Thomas - we just don't know if she told Clarence yet.

Likely 7-2 at least.

WW

OK, I will give you that. I forgot the missus tells Clarence how to vote.