Trump Challenges Equal Endowment Of Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal Migrants

[danielpalos]

trump cannot unilaterally change the Constitution.

The Constitution never gave illegals anchor brats citizenship.

The claims that it had when it hadn't are lies (propaganda) put out by libs and republican swamp creatures who want the illegals in. Following the civil war an amendment was put in making slaves and their offspring citizens because they had put under and lived under the jurisdiction of the US for generations in many cases and were no longer subject to their home nations jurisdictions------------INDIANS weren't even made citizens no matter where they were born.........foreigners and their offspring weren't made citizens either and were never intended to be made citizens by this amendment. Only after SC ROBERTS and others spun and twisted the law were such claims were made despite the historical facts.

Natural born is the only requirement after 1808. We did not need a civil war nor the amendments that followed, only morals.

No......that is a lie.

Ellis ISland for example during the early 1900's with the immigrants flooding over. Born over or not-----if your parents weren't citizens you weren't one. Many many babies born here were kicked out when their parents didn't qualify citizenship or entry into the US for such things as not paying their medical examination bills, not being able to speak english, having a disease or disability, not having someone sponsor and vouch for them.

No lie what so ever. There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or an illegal underclass. And, even Mexicans were processed at Ellis Island. Only right wingers prefer to Create problems and then blame the less fortunate just to Prove their lack of morals.

 

[Unkotare]

..... Many many babies born here were kicked out when their parents didn't qualify citizenship or entry into the US for such things as not paying their medical examination bills, not being able to speak english, ...

You forgot to include a link to this.

 

[Lysistrata]

trump cannot unilaterally change the Constitution.

The Constitution never gave illegals anchor brats citizenship.

The claims that it had when it hadn't are lies (propaganda) put out by libs and republican swamp creatures who want the illegals in. Following the civil war an amendment was put in making slaves and their offspring citizens because they had put under and lived under the jurisdiction of the US for generations in many cases and were no longer subject to their home nations jurisdictions------------INDIANS weren't even made citizens no matter where they were born.........foreigners and their offspring weren't made citizens either and were never intended to be made citizens by this amendment. Only after SC ROBERTS and others spun and twisted the law were such claims were made despite the historical facts.

Natural born is the only requirement after 1808. We did not need a civil war nor the amendments that followed, only morals.

No......that is a lie.

Ellis ISland for example during the early 1900's with the immigrants flooding over. Born over or not-----if your parents weren't citizens you weren't one. Many many babies born here were kicked out when their parents didn't qualify citizenship or entry into the US for such things as not paying their medical examination bills, not being able to speak english, having a disease or disability, not having someone sponsor and vouch for them.

Now that you have tried to delegitimize my own mother, born in New Jersey, and her siblings, based on the date of their mother's and father's swearing in as citizens, go do your own ancestral homework. You are saying that any ancestors of people in Texas who were born when Texas was a territory of Mexico could not have passed down U.S. citizenship to their offspring. According to your theory, many of the people who fought Santa Ana at the Alamo were Mexican citizens.

Oh look ...you don't like the facts so you try for some sort of emotional manipulation? These type of stunts don't work well me since I always just restate the facts.

Hun again------many people flooded over to the US early 1900's and sought american citizenship. Many gave birth here and were subsequently denied citizenship for various reasons ---their offspring born here or not---were also kicked back out of the country with them and not given citizenship. There never was an amendment that gave anchor brats citizenship.

Apparently, since you haven't figured it out on your own--your mother not born here and her siblings not born here like other kids not born here---was given citizenship when their parents became citizens (I assume legally) although given the nonsense you posted after being told the facts if they weren't given legal citizenship--I am all for tossing them and you back out. I like intelligent non-manipulative people, not free loaders attempting to manpulate.

All Texans (well not Indians) became citizens of the US when TEXAS became part of the US regardless of where their parents were born hun.

My mother was born in Newark, N.J., in 1918, asshole. She was born a legal citizen of the United States, as were her siblings. I was born in New Jersey, too. What "facts" are you talking about? Manufactured "facts"?

What is so funny about your bizarre "legal" theory, aside from the assertions that our Native Peoples of all tribes, even those who served so bravely in our wars like the Navaho code talkers, are not U.S. citizens, and neither are our folks from China who built our railroads, is that your theory of the 14th Amendment, gives priority to the pedigree of African-Americans whose ancestors were held in bondage in the United States. If your theory has any credence, which it does not, African-Americans who are the descendants of those who were enslaved have superior rights to citizenship above your own.

I'm not that much of a snob. My father's ancestors arrived in New York from Ireland in the 1840's, Greatful to be accepted into a great nation. My mother's ancestors arrived from Russia, Poland, and Lithuania in the years prior to the Russian Revolution and WWI. Greatful to be accepted into a great nation.

Now you. Were your ancestors from somewhere else greatful to be accepted into a great nation?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Partisan Arguments With Basics Of Citizenship Endowment "

* Depends On Whether One Enters The Front Door Invited Or The Window Uninvited *

Now that you have tried to delegitimize my own mother, born in New Jersey, and her siblings, based on the date of their mother's and father's swearing in as citizens, go do your own ancestral homework. You are saying that any ancestors of people in Texas who were born when Texas was a territory of Mexico could not have passed down U.S. citizenship to their offspring. According to your theory, many of the people who fought Santa Ana at the Alamo were Mexican citizens.

The phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " literally means to be a subject by title of a legal agreement whereby the us vets the subject and authorizes their immigration to the united states and assumes jurisdiction to issue their " equal protection " and to an agreed extent their " endowments " as otherwise , technically , the country of origin remains responsible and must petition the us for justice through diplomacy .

The thread title stipulates " equal endowment " is being challenged because that is distinct from " equal protection " , as citizenship is an endowment .

The basis of a court challenge based upon wong kim ark is that the wong family had been legally allowed into the united states as subjects by title in us legal immigration system whereby us assumed jurisdiction for their well being .

An illegal migrant does not qualify as being a subject by title in us jurisdiction and their children are likewise to be given jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of their parents origin .

Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ?

" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? " * Opining Proposition * Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother . To avoid humanitarian...

www.usmessageboard.com

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13]
...
The U.S. government claimed that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant "to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States"—an interpretation, based on international law, which would exclude parents and their children who owed allegiance to another country via the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from a parent).[97][98]

 

[danielpalos]

" Partisan Arguments With Basics Of Citizenship Endowment "

* Depends On Whether One Enters The Front Door Invited Or The Window Uninvited *

Now that you have tried to delegitimize my own mother, born in New Jersey, and her siblings, based on the date of their mother's and father's swearing in as citizens, go do your own ancestral homework. You are saying that any ancestors of people in Texas who were born when Texas was a territory of Mexico could not have passed down U.S. citizenship to their offspring. According to your theory, many of the people who fought Santa Ana at the Alamo were Mexican citizens.

The phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " literally means to be a subject by title of a legal agreement whereby the us vets the subject and authorizes their immigration to the united states and assumes jurisdiction to issue their " equal protection " and to an agreed extent their " endowments " as otherwise , technically , the country of origin remains responsible and must petition the us for justice through diplomacy .

The thread title stipulates " equal endowment " is being challenged because that is distinct from " equal protection " , as citizenship is an endowment .

The basis of a court challenge based upon wong kim ark is that the wong family had been legally allowed into the united states as subjects by title in us legal immigration system whereby us assumed jurisdiction for their well being .

An illegal migrant does not qualify as being a subject by title in us jurisdiction and their children are likewise to be given jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of their parents origin .

Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ?

" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? " * Opining Proposition * Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother . To avoid humanitarian...

www.usmessageboard.com

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13]
...
The U.S. government claimed that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant "to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States"—an interpretation, based on international law, which would exclude parents and their children who owed allegiance to another country via the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from a parent).[97][98]

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

 

[danielpalos]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Off The Road Again "

* Speaking With Lofted Anus *

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

The things you are stating do not make any sense with respect to the opening post and i keep hoping for a :no_idea: emoticon for quick response .

The racism and bigotry are instigated by yourself as there are 600 - 800 million in latin america and you promote their free roam invasion of the united states to confiscate whatever they can and breed themselves again into poverty that no economy can support to sack evil whitey and replace them with your beloved la raza .

Thus , to do so , you are willing to discount organized crime as though it does not and has not ever existed anywhere in the world , especially in countries of origin and within those for who you wish to import , while denying the us citizens the responsibilty of a legal immigration system and opportunity to vet them for competence .

There is likely little doubt that you want to confiscate weapons from the public to implement the tyranny by majority of proletariat populism for socialism so that the wise king totalitarians can acquire their government dream jobs and implement its fake moral virtues .

Left Wing Mental Degenerates Undermining Reality Of Gangs

" Left Wing Mental Degenerates Undermining Reality Of Gangs " * Anti-Racist Racist Socialists On The Hisbah Move * The mental degenerate left wants to be able to promote its open borders invasion , its evil white supremacist conspiracies and mass shooting gun control fanaticism by binding the...

www.usmessageboard.com

There is likely little doubt that you wish to promote objectivity and justify it with ignorance for want to hide and discount 1400 years of homicide by doctrine within fictional ishmaelism as obviously neither september 11 2001 and world history ever occurred .

How Are Democrat Candidates Squared With LGBT And Palestinian Authority ?

" How Are Democrat Candidates Squared With LGBT And Palestinian Authority ? " * Opening Post Topic Reference ( s ) * The Palestinian Authority just banned all LGBT activities in the West Bank LGBT rights in the State of Palestine - Wikipedia Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people in...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[danielpalos]

" Off The Road Again "

* Speaking With Lofted Anus *

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

The things you are stating do not make any sense with respect to the opening post and i keep hoping for a :no_idea: emoticon for quick response .

The racism and bigotry are instigated by yourself as there are 600 - 800 million in latin america and you promote their free roam invasion of the united states to confiscate whatever they can and breed themselves again into poverty that no economy can support to sack evil whitey and replace them with your beloved la raza .

Thus , to do so , you are willing to discount organized crime as though it does not and has not ever existed anywhere in the world , especially in countries of origin and within those for who you wish to import , while denying the us citizens the responsibilty of a legal immigration system and opportunity to vet them for competence .

There is likely little doubt that you want to confiscate weapons from the public to implement the tyranny by majority of proletariat populism for socialism so that the wise king totalitarians can acquire their government dream jobs and implement its fake moral virtues .

Left Wing Mental Degenerates Undermining Reality Of Gangs

" Left Wing Mental Degenerates Undermining Reality Of Gangs " * Anti-Racist Racist Socialists On The Hisbah Move * The mental degenerate left wants to be able to promote its open borders invasion , its evil white supremacist conspiracies and mass shooting gun control fanaticism by binding the...

www.usmessageboard.com

There is likely little doubt that you wish to promote objectivity and justify it with ignorance for want to hide and discount 1400 years of homicide by doctrine within fictional ishmaelism as obviously neither september 11 2001 and world history ever occurred .

How Are Democrat Candidates Squared With LGBT And Palestinian Authority ?

" How Are Democrat Candidates Squared With LGBT And Palestinian Authority ? " * Opening Post Topic Reference ( s ) * The Palestinian Authority just banned all LGBT activities in the West Bank LGBT rights in the State of Palestine - Wikipedia Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people in...

www.usmessageboard.com

lol. What you allege makes even less sense under our Constitutional form of Government.

See how easy it is to type words on a keyboard.

 

[Auld Phart]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,

So, people over the age of 45 aren't allowed to own firearms to defend themselves?

 

[Lysistrata]

trump cannot unilaterally change the Constitution.

The Constitution never gave illegals anchor brats citizenship.

The claims that it had when it hadn't are lies (propaganda) put out by libs and republican swamp creatures who want the illegals in. Following the civil war an amendment was put in making slaves and their offspring citizens because they had put under and lived under the jurisdiction of the US for generations in many cases and were no longer subject to their home nations jurisdictions------------INDIANS weren't even made citizens no matter where they were born.........foreigners and their offspring weren't made citizens either and were never intended to be made citizens by this amendment. Only after SC ROBERTS and others spun and twisted the law were such claims were made despite the historical facts.

Natural born is the only requirement after 1808. We did not need a civil war nor the amendments that followed, only morals.

No......that is a lie.

Ellis ISland for example during the early 1900's with the immigrants flooding over. Born over or not-----if your parents weren't citizens you weren't one. Many many babies born here were kicked out when their parents didn't qualify citizenship or entry into the US for such things as not paying their medical examination bills, not being able to speak english, having a disease or disability, not having someone sponsor and vouch for them.

Now that you have tried to delegitimize my own mother, born in New Jersey, and her siblings, based on the date of their mother's and father's swearing in as citizens, go do your own ancestral homework. You are saying that any ancestors of people in Texas who were born when Texas was a territory of Mexico could not have passed down U.S. citizenship to their offspring. According to your theory, many of the people who fought Santa Ana at the Alamo were Mexican citizens.

Oh look ...you don't like the facts so you try for some sort of emotional manipulation? These type of stunts don't work well me since I always just restate the facts.

Hun again------many people flooded over to the US early 1900's and sought american citizenship. Many gave birth here and were subsequently denied citizenship for various reasons ---their offspring born here or not---were also kicked out back out of the country with them and not given citizenship. There never was an amendment that gave anchor brats citizenship.

Apparently, since you haven't figured it out on your own--your mother not born here and her siblings not born here like other kids not born here---was given citizenship when their parents became citizens (I assume legally) although given the nonsense you posted after being told the facts if they weren't given legal citizenship--I am all for tossing them and you back out. I like intelligent non-manipulative people, not free loaders attempting to manpulate.

All Texans (well not Indians) became citizens of the US when TEXAS became part of the US regardless of where their parents were born hun.

That was before the Civil War

Doesn't matter....

All states were the same before or after the war----once a state was admitted into the US--its citizens all gained citizenship regardless of where their parents were born..well still not the slaves before war and the indians before or after the war.

Yet that has nothing to do with the amendment and it's interpretation of today. Indians are citizens of their own sovereign nation.

n
They are also citizens of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,

So, people over the age of 45 aren't allowed to own firearms to defend themselves?

Why would they need to? We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,

So, people over the age of 45 aren't allowed to own firearms to defend themselves?

Why would they need to? We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

PER the Second Amendment, they are allowed to own a firearm.


DESPITE your misconceptions.

 

[danielpalos]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,

So, people over the age of 45 aren't allowed to own firearms to defend themselves?

Why would they need to? We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

PER the Second Amendment, they are allowed to own a firearm.


DESPITE your misconceptions.

Not my misconception, I merely did not need to meet my usual quota of rhetoric that time.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free State. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

 

[Agit8r]

Exectuve orders cannot determine judicial precident. He can write it down, but it cannot have any force of law.

 

[Auld Phart]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,

So, people over the age of 45 aren't allowed to own firearms to defend themselves?

Why would they need to? We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

PER the Second Amendment, they are allowed to own a firearm.


DESPITE your misconceptions.

Not my misconception, I merely did not need to meet my usual quota of rhetoric that time.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free State. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

Only militias need to be 'regulated', according to the Second.

As previously noted, gun owners don't belong to a 'militia', by your standards.

 

[danielpalos]

" Paper Tiger Responses "

* Communication Disconnect *

That concept has always been sophistry manufactured by right wing fantasy.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You should explain your theory of defense and protection to the legal migrants who harbor illegal migrants , and the number of legal migrants into us immigration system should be reduced to countries of origin in proportion with the estimated number of illegal migrants from those countries , as an offset , and do not grant amnesty or paths to citizenship for the illegal migrants and simply let them remain citizens of their country of origin .

Otherwise , there is another nonsense , red herring , response from you that does not address the issue which you will no doubt offer cyclically , add nausea .

Bearing true witness and thus being legal to our own laws, unlike the fantastical right wing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Are your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror really really Important or just right wing Hoax and bigotry?

who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,

So, people over the age of 45 aren't allowed to own firearms to defend themselves?

Why would they need to? We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

PER the Second Amendment, they are allowed to own a firearm.


DESPITE your misconceptions.

Not my misconception, I merely did not need to meet my usual quota of rhetoric that time.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free State. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

Only militias need to be 'regulated', according to the Second.

As previously noted, gun owners don't belong to a 'militia', by your standards.

Irrelevant.

The People are the Militia for Second Amendment purposes.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Try to figure out what that means.

It says the right of the people, NOT the right of the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Try to figure out what that means.

It says the right of the people, NOT the right of the militia.

The people are the militia. Do you deny or disparage a State's sovereign right to draft or organize its militia? Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is required as an End which justifies the Means.

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Try to figure out what that means.

It says the right of the people, NOT the right of the militia.

The people are the militia. Do you deny or disparage a State's sovereign right to draft or organize its militia? Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is required as an End which justifies the Means.

The people are the militia.

Only the people between the ages of 18-45, according to you.

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is required as an End which justifies the Means.

Yes, it is clear.

Why do you misinterpret it?