Hopefully Trump keeps promise to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals

[johnwk2]

What logic? THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION apply to the entire constitution, including the first ten amendments to our Constitution.

[Independent4Life]

@johnwk2

What logic? THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION apply to the entire constitution, including the first ten amendments to our Constitution.

Acting like there is some super secret meaning behind simple words is just dumb. It means exactly what it says. Just like the 1st and 2nd

[WuWei]

Motivated “reasoning”
Cognitive dissonance
Ignorance

[WuWei]

@Independent4Life

@WuWei

That they can do, if they want sEpAraTiNg fAmiLieS all over every headline.

How would that logic apply to the 1st and 2nd amendment

I don’t understand your question?

[johnwk2]

@Independent4Life

@johnwk2

What logic? THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION apply to the entire constitution, including the first ten amendments to our Constitution.

Acting like there is some super secret meaning behind simple words is just dumb. It means exactly what it says. Just like the 1st and 2nd

Acting? We are talking about adhering to the fundamental rules of constitutional law.

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[WuWei]

@johnwk2

Dicta

Where are you getting that?

[johnwk2]

From what is quoted HERE

One can lead a mule to water but cannot make that jackass drink.

[Ben_Natuf]

good!

[Independent4Life]

@Independent4Life

@WuWei

That they can do, if they want sEpAraTiNg fAmiLieS all over every headline.

How would that logic apply to the 1st and 2nd amendment

Was ment for wick not you

[STODR]

Looks like Trump is already having an affect. I am sure Biden will take credit.

Some migrants anticipating Trump's policies are already turning back home:...

[conan]

@Independent4Life

I really don’t get how anyone can read“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Same way the left distorts first and 2nd Amendment.

[Independent4Life]

@conan

@Independent4Life

I really don’t get how anyone can read“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Same way the left distorts first and 2nd Amendment.

Same examples I gave, but at least the wording of the 2a makes it possible for libs to make arguments without sounding like a complete illiterate retard. They can argue background checks are not actually infringing and still allow the creation of a militia.

I can see how someone can make that argument even tho i disagree. This on the other hand is just 100% stupidity or bad faith.

[WuWei]

@Independent4Life

but at least the wording of the 2a makes it possible for libs to make arguments without sounding like a complete illiterate retard.

No, it really doesn’t.

[Independent4Life]

@johnwk2

Dicta and irrelevant.

Plyler v. Doe

In 1981, the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe195 that a Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding state funds from local school districts for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States and by authorizing local school districts to deny enrollment to such children.196 The Court reaffirmed that illegal aliens were “persons” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and concluded that they were also “within the jurisdiction” of the state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.197 It reasoned that the phrase “within its jurisdiction” extends the protection to “anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State,” and “reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.”198 While this case in and of itself did not deal with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, universal birthright citizenship advocates point to a footnote in that opinion containing dicta that invoked the Court’s decision in
Wong Kim Ark:

See: SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTIONTHEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

Are you saying illegals are not subject to the US jurisdiction while in america? This doesn’t make sense at all. If an illegal mother gives birth in Texas in your world what jurisdiction would they be in?

Logically how would this even work? It just doesn’t compute?

[Independent4Life]

@WuWei

@Independent4Life

but at least the wording of the 2a makes it possible for libs to make arguments without sounding like a complete illiterate retard.

No, it really doesn’t.

It really does, im as pro 2a as one can possibly be. In my mind the prosecution of hunter biden was clearly unconstitutional. But Anti 2a arguments are at least far more coherent thn the anti 14a ones being pushed here.

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

There is one thing you have been wrong about. Once Trump is sworn in, he can change it immediately. He doesn’t need a courts permission. Once he does, it is changed until and unless a court changes it back. If there never is a court case, the law will be that illegal alien progeny are not citizens. Of course, it will be challenged and then there will be clarity.

No, I am not wrong about that … He can try to change it immediately by issuing an EO. Almost certainly, that action will immediately be challenged in a District Court and most likely, that Court will stay the EO (because to not do so could cause chaos if allowed to stand while the appeals process is unfolding) and ultimately, the case will be heard in the Supreme Court. What its fate will be there, I don’t know, but my guess is that the EO will be overturned.

[johnwk2]

@Independent4Life

@johnwk2

Dicta and irrelevant.

Plyler v. Doe

In 1981, the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe195 that a Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding state funds from local school districts for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States and by authorizing local school districts to deny enrollment to such children.196 The Court reaffirmed that illegal aliens were “persons” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and concluded that they were also “within the jurisdiction” of the state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.197 It reasoned that the phrase “within its jurisdiction” extends the protection to “anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State,” and “reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.”198 While this case in and of itself did not deal with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, universal birthright citizenship advocates point to a footnote in that opinion containing dicta that invoked the Court’s decision in
Wong Kim Ark:

See: SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTIONTHEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

Are you saying illegals are not subject to the US jurisdiction while in america?

I already provided an answer to that question HERE

[WuWei]

No, it’s the same argument. Exactly the same.

[conan]

@Independent4Life

Same examples I gave, but at least the wording of the 2a makes it possible for libs to make arguments without sounding like a complete illiterate retard.

Then you’re not listening…

[conan]

@Independent4Life

But Anti 2a arguments are at least far more coherent thn the anti 14a ones being pushed here.

Actually no…same justification of one owns hypocrisy being played out.