When trump's retribution tour begins, could someone tell me if....

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Not feels: the Constitution and supporting case law. You have what now?

Post it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Post it.

You have a post it note?

 

[Delldude]

No, its not.

Will be SCOTUS bound.................take it to the bank.

 

[Delldude]

I have posted the text of the amendment.

Can you post legal interpretation of the amendment?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Can you post legal interpretation of the amendment?

We did. What case do you have to support your argument?

 

[otto105]

I can research.

Case law.

Do tell

 

[Zincwarrior]

Case law.

Do tell

Exactly, what actual case law do they have to support their argument?

 

[Delldude]

Exactly, what actual case law do they have to support their argument?

You posted it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You posted it.

Yes, its supports the argument I made. Please cite case law supporting your argument. Anything?

 

[Delldude]

Yes, its supports the argument I made. Please cite case law supporting your argument. Anything?

The dissent........and like I said, I expect it to go to SCOTUS in the future.

 

[Rawley]

Diplomats under treaty cannot be.

Sure they can. They'll be release immediately, but they are subject to arrest.

Please cite some case law to support your argument.

Elk v. Wilkins

 

[berg80]

There is no retribution tour. When are you leftards going to figure out you’ve been lied to your entire life.

IRONY ALERT!

 

[berg80]

There is no retribution tour. When are you leftards going to figure out you’ve been lied to your entire life.

You understand if there is no retribution tour it means you folks have been lied to, right?

 

[Delldude]

There is no retribution tour.

The retribution is the lefts paranoia of Trump, in their heads, and what may lie ahead.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sure they can. They'll be release immediately, but they are subject to arrest.

Elk v. Wilkins

Supports mine actually. Person at issue was born on a reservation, which was separate by treaty.

 

[Rawley]

Supports mine actually. Person at issue was born on a reservation, which was separate by treaty.

Nope. You should read the case. It didn't matter if his mother dropped him in Times Square. He was not a citizen by birth becasue his parents were not citizens, even though he was "born ... in the United States."

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nope. You should read the case. It didn't matter if his mother dropped him in Times Square. He was not a citizen by birth becasue his parents were not citizens, even though he was "born ... in the United States."

Interesting. I am sure that will work vs. direct on point stare decisis.

 

[Rawley]

Interesting. I am sure that will work vs. direct on point stare decisis.

What "direct on point stare decisis." are you thinking about?

 

[Delldude]

What "direct on point stare decisis." are you thinking about?

Roe vs Wade......

 

[Zincwarrior]

What "direct on point stare decisis." are you thinking about?

Wong vs. Kim directly addresses Elk:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.


The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 28 U. S. 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.