Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

Guy, what they said in the debates doesn't matter.

Just what they put on the page.

View attachment 1072713
Really? So you're saying what they intended doesn't matter? So we can ignore the context behind every article and law?

Jurisdiction can mean different things, we have what they meant by the debates they had, but of you want to go strictly by the text, then I say the word jurisdiction means something other than what you think it means.

we rely on scotus to interpret the cotus based on past facts and intent. It does amaze me that scotus could decide Wong Kim ark like they did, considering that decision was only 30 years after the 14th amendment was written. The debates would have been fresh in their minds. They should have relied on those debates in their decision. We see here we have an example of a court changing the meaning.

So..I guess words only mean whatever the current generation defines them as.


As I said before, scotus can simply re interpret the amendment for this generation.
 
The definition is not in the amendment text. People who came her voluntarily are not owing allegiance to another country. That is an assumption that was made that has no basis in fact.

Why don't you want to put it in writing so that future Presidents cannot sign an EO making it legal again? Why do you intend to do a half-ass job instead of doing the right thing?
OK, so then I think your assumption of the meaning is wrong.

Since NONE of the amendments come with a glossary of terms, then none of it has any meaning but what the current generation decides. Congratulations on having ever changing rights.
 
Really? So you're saying what they intended doesn't matter? So we can ignore the context behind every article and law?

Jurisdiction can mean different things, we have what they meant by the debates they had, but of you want to go strictly by the text, then I say the word jurisdiction means something other than what you think it means.

we rely on scotus to interpret the cotus based on past facts and intent. It does amaze me that scotus could decide Wong Kim ark like they did, considering that decision was only 30 years after the 14th amendment was written. The debates would have been fresh in their minds. They should have relied on those debates in their decision. We see here we have an example of a court changing the meaning.

So..I guess words only mean whatever the current generation defines them as.


As I said before, scotus can simply re interpret the amendment for this generation.
Original intent can be important, but even back then they may have gotten some thing's wrong.

When see or detect confusion found within a decision made, that's where leftist thrive on taking advantage of that confusion. This is when leftist attempt to reinterpret the meaning of decisions made for their own agendas and benefit. So to hell with the negative effects their bull chit might cause Americans in the long haul, because it's all about what leftist spoiled brats want, and nothing else.
 
The only confusion is with those who want to change birthright citizenship.

You are losing this so bigly.
 
The only confusion is with those who want to change birthright citizenship.

You are losing this so bigly.
We shall see, we shall see.
The score board ain't looking to be in your favor these day's... Just sayin..
 
Get an eye exam then, Magoo. :)
Desperation continues. Their ain't no John Elway on your team, so the long desperate throw to the in zone is uhhhh not an option for your team at this point, so it's not looking good for your team at all. Just accept your losses and move on.
 
The only confusion is with those who want to change birthright citizenship.

You are losing this so bigly.
Well, we've so far established that words have no meaning but that of the current generations definition of them. So, I guess that means our rights will change depending on who controls the scotus.

That outta be fun..
 
Last edited:
Desperation continues. Their ain't no John Elway on your team, so the long desperate throw to the in zone is uhhhh not an option for your team at this point, so it's not looking good for your team at all. Just accept your losses and move on.
There is no desperation here. Even Thomas and Alito would vote against it.
 
Well, we've so fat established that words have no meaning but that of the current generations definition of them. So, I guess that means our rights will change depending on who controls the scotus.

That outta be fun..
It's the only way it could change. But it won't.
 
It's the only way it could change. But it won't.

The cotus? Maybe it wasn't supposed to change. Maybe we're supposed to live by it's principles, which were made to give government a limited role, but maintain the states supremacy in the nation.
 
The cotus? Maybe it wasn't supposed to change. Maybe we're supposed to live by it's principles, which were made to give government a limited role, but maintain the states supremacy in the nation.
Not if you have an amendment granted in COTUS, which you do, and not if we have 27 amendments, and we do, sweet cheeks.
 
Not if you have an amendment granted in COTUS, which you do, and not if we have 27 amendments, and we do, sweet cheeks.

show me the amendment that gives the federal government the complete authority over the states.
 
show me the amendment that gives the federal government the complete authority over the states.
This is not up for discussion. The federal supremacy clause is a fact, and you know it.

You are no judge, no expert, have little understanding of COTUS and less of American history.
 
15th post
This is not up for discussion. The federal supremacy clause is a fact, and you know it.

You are no judge, no expert, have little understanding of COTUS and less of American history.
It doesn't have complete authority over the state's, and this is proven by states being able to sue the feds whenever it violates state's rights or seeks to undermine a state for political reason's.
 
This is not up for discussion. The federal supremacy clause is a fact, and you know it.

You are no judge, no expert, have little understanding of COTUS and less of American history.

OK, let's look at the supremacy clause.

This is article 6 of the cotus:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


What this is saying is "this constitution" and all of the laws made under its principle, are the supreme law of the land. What this also means that, any laws that go against the constitution are not the supreme law of the land.

Then we have the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So when you put all of this together, what it's telling us is that, any law made under the principles of the constitution are the supreme law of the land, everything else is reserved to the states and the people.

What are the powers afforded to the federal government by the cotus?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Notice that last paragraph. To make all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER for the carrying into execution the FOREGOING powers, and all other powers vested by THIS CONSTITUTION

It all boils down to saying, that this constitution gives the federal government ONLY the power defined within the document and the 18 delegated powers. EVERYTHING else is left to the states.

So, the supremacy clause was not about giving the federal government total control, it was about giving the constitution total control.
 
It doesn't have complete authority over the state's, and this is proven by states being able to sue the feds whenever it violates state's rights or seeks to undermine a state for political reason's.
Yes, I agree. But birthright citizenship is a federal matter, not the states in anyway whatsover.
 
OK, let's look at the supremacy clause.

This is article 6 of the cotus:




What this is saying is "this constitution" and all of the laws made under its principle, are the supreme law of the land. What this also means that, any laws that go against the constitution are not the supreme law of the land.

Then we have the 10th amendment:



So when you put all of this together, what it's telling us is that, any law made under the principles of the constitution are the supreme law of the land, everything else is reserved to the states and the people.

What are the powers afforded to the federal government by the cotus?



Notice that last paragraph. To make all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER for the carrying into execution the FOREGOING powers, and all other powers vested by THIS CONSTITUTION

It all boils down to saying, that this constitution gives the federal government ONLY the power defined within the document and the 18 delegated powers. EVERYTHING else is left to the states.

So, the supremacy clause was not about giving the federal government total control, it was about giving the constitution total control.
This was true then in 1789, and now in 235 years has been amended and interpreted to weaken considerably the 10th.
 
Back
Top Bottom