The case for birthright citizenship.

[Delldude]

Well, except for the fact that it wasn't there, hence Dobbs. You said it yourself. Roe was based on a fantasy right not even written into the Constitution. Game, set, match!

As far as the courts were concerned and determined, it was. That is the same as interpreting the meaning of 'jurisdiction there of'.....................

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As far as the courts were concerned and determined, it was. That is the same as interpreting the meaning of 'jurisdiction there of'.....................

For about the 10 thousandth time, that phrase is as old as dirt and has a specific meaning. Why don't you understand that the courts will likely rule that anyone born in the US that is not a diplomat or related person is a US citizen. It doesn't mention children of illegals because there were no illegals. If you want to restrict that, you need an amendment. Trump has triggered about a two year waste of taxpayer dollars that will benefit no one except the lawyers. Change the Constitution. It can be done in a matter of months and not subject to interpretation by a future court.

 

[Rawley]

Hope so because the left is making it all about the children.

The left lost over 300,000 children and don't give a rat's ass. SO their whines about "the children" are going to fall on deaf ears.

 

[Rawley]

For about the 10 thousandth time, that phrase is as old as dirt and has a specific meaning. Why don't you understand that the courts will likely rule that anyone born in the US that is not a diplomat or related person is a US citizen. It doesn't mention children of illegals because there were no illegals.

It doesn't mention diplomats either

 

[Delldude]

For about the 10 thousandth time, that phrase is as old as dirt and has a specific meaning.

Admiral, both these issues are about wording of the 14th amendment.....in one case, a court determined there was a constitutional protection for abortion, based on their interpretation of the wording of the 14th. In the other issue, a court determined what the wording meant regarding jurisdiction there of, in both cases it was SCOTUS' interpretation of what the original intent was in the wording in both cases...................nothing more, nothing less. Legal interpretation is the primary job of SCOTUS.

Game, set, match!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral, both these issues are about wording of the 14th amendment.....in one case, a court determined there was a constitutional protection for abortion, based on their interpretation of the wording of the 14th. In the other issue, a court determined what the wording meant regarding jurisdiction there of, in both cases it was SCOTUS' interpretation of what the original intent was in the wording in both cases...................nothing more, nothing less. Legal interpretation is the primary job of SCOTUS.

Game, set, match!

The problem that you don't realize is there was no wording in the Constitution regarding Roe v. Wade to interpret. They made the whole thing up! The wording regarding "jurisdiction there of" being open for interpretation is the only thing that is debatable. SCOTUS ruled on that definition in 1898 before any such illegals existed. Because Kim Wong Ark was subject to the jurisdiction of the US by being born here, he was granted citizenship. If they had determined he was not subject to the jurisdiction he would have been denied citizenship and would have been refused entry back into the US.

I'll make a prediction here and now. The case will be adjudicated at the lower court levels and SCOTUS will never even look at it.

The amendment process should have been started Monday.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral, both these issues are about wording of the 14th amendment.....in one case, a court determined there was a constitutional protection for abortion, based on their interpretation of the wording of the 14th. In the other issue, a court determined what the wording meant regarding jurisdiction there of, in both cases it was SCOTUS' interpretation of what the original intent was in the wording in both cases...................nothing more, nothing less. Legal interpretation is the primary job of SCOTUS.

Game, set, match!

That's a Mark 48 torpedo hit in case you didn't know.

 

[Delldude]

The problem that you don't realize is there was no wording in the Constitution regarding Roe v. Wade to interpret.

Existing wording was interpreted to include abortion as covered under the COTUS and made law of the land.

They made the whole thing up!

Admiral ,it's time for your meds....

I'll make a prediction here and now. The case will be adjudicated at the lower court levels and SCOTUS will never even look at it.

Only way it would be adjudicated at a lower court would be if they agreed with Trump, otherwise it will proceed to SCOTUS.

 

[Delldude]

That's a Mark 48 torpedo hit in case you didn't know.

Just blew your ass outa the water.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Existing wording was interpreted to include abortion as covered under the COTUS and made law of the land.

Admiral ,it's time for your meds....

Only way it would be adjudicated at a lower court would be if they agreed with Trump, otherwise it will proceed to SCOTUS.

Look, your knowledge of Constitutional law and Supreme Court rulings isn't even at the high school level. All of your arguments will prove to be null and void, just like Roe v. Wade because they have no basis. we are simply wasting our time with interpretation of an amendment that has previously been evaluated. God forbid it happens but imagine the libs getting control back of SCOTUS in the future and restoring their own interpretation. So you want that possibility? If not, do an amendment!

 

[progressive hunter]

The left lost over 300,000 children and don't give a rat's ass. SO their whines about "the children" are going to fall on deaf ears.

the left didnnt lose them,,
they moved them to place where its easier to access them for their sexual pleasures,,

 

[Delldude]

Look, your knowledge of Constitutional law and Supreme Court rulings isn't even at the high school level.

And yours is.....

we are simply wasting our time with interpretation of an amendment that has previously been evaluated.

And there you have it, Trump wants to challenge the interpretation, one way or the other.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And yours is.....

And there you have it, Trump wants to challenge the interpretation, one way or the other.

I have graduate level law classes on my transcript. What about yours?

Your way will not work based on past history. The amendment is the only sure thing, which was my point from the very beginning.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just blew your ass outa the water.

That's a British ship BTW.

 

[Delldude]

I have graduate level law classes on my transcript. What about yours?

Don't need graduate level law classes to understand how Scotus works.
Hillsdale.

Your way will not work based on past history.

I don't think so.

 

[Rawley]

the left didnnt lose them,,
they moved them to place where its easier to access them for their sexual pleasures,,

It scares me to agree with you

 

[Rawley]

I have graduate level law classes on my transcript. What about yours?

A JD

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Don't need graduate level law classes to understand how Scotus works.
Hillsdale.

I don't think so.

Apparently, you do.

That is the problem, not thinking.

We'll see! This is starting to get boring.

 

[Delldude]

That is the problem, not thinking.

Try and give that a shot and get back to me when SCOTUS writes an opinion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Try and give that a shot and get back to me when SCOTUS writes an opinion.

Like I said, I doubt they will even take the case.