156

:rofl:

Yes.

Did you understand the dissent?

There was no disagreement regarding the 14th Amendments meaning.

157

There was a disagreement as to how it applied, which is meaning.

back to my point, It is very seldom that on important issues justices are not split, and therefore it is odd that you are so certain.

My hope is that this issue will be adjudicated with intent in mind and not the tense climate of today. Or maybe Congress will act and keep it out of the court.

then again, what do you think about conscription. other socialist countries do it.

158

The disagreement was over which had priority, the Constitution or existing treaties with China.

In reality, the dissent was about racism against the Chinese, not a disagreement over the law.

As for Congress stepping in - they can’t without amending the Constitution.

159

I think there’s no practical reason for us to have military conscription.

Why do keep babbling about “socialist countries”?

161

because the left brings them up all the time, they do it and so should we.

162

look what I found on Cassandra

I am honored professor.

163

So?

What does that have to do with what we’re discussing?

164

certainly the answer may be both, but not an of course both.

blazing new trails for liberty and prosperity is mutually exclusive from the status quo or old order.

166

check title of thread.

167

then he has a clone that thinks and writes just like him.

170

I get you, low profile. trade economist, playing on Hannity.

171

The Framers of the constitution looked very hard at other countries for guidance. Mostly guidance about what happens when …
It was looking at other countries that created this country’s form of government.

173

Again, thanks for disagreeing without being disagreeable. I concede the validity of all your points, agreeable to me or not. I might even slide toward you on constructive engagement vs. imposed participation.

Nationalism as a political concept is trending right now. I don’t mean “white nationalism”, I mean the one that falls between patriotism and jingoism. A commitment to national interest over shared global interest first, last and always when they conflict. I doubt that there are many states more nationalistic than Israel, and reasonably so. Their very existence has pretty much been under direct threat since day one. And I believe they still require two years of national service (not necessarily military) from every citizen? No question that is a government infringement on personal liberty, but it sure gives you skin in the game, doesn’t it? I think part of our problem on both sides is how many so often take our freedoms, and responsibilities, for granted.

But yeah, as a concept, it certainly doesn’t appear in the Constitution, so I have no problem with the view that it’s a bridge too far. It’s just my opinion.

174

That is an outstanding point, They looked through history and decided what not to be, they did not look contemporaneously and decide what to be.

or do you believe they did.

excellent idea.

177

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

178

we share the same concerns, and thank you for actually providing constructive engagement and evaluation.

I tend to agree with your objectives but the mechanism is the problem, I am one of those limited government people even to the extent I have reconsidered American interventionism around the globe,

Thread I started was the Underwood Tariff Act and how we have betrayed founding principles

179

but a republic is great.

183

You are grand contributor indeed on this forum, always a perspective that challenges the status quo, Intellectually provoking.
always on the opposite side of me, but with well reasoned positions. You sir are a valuable asset to any discussion, even though you are ALWAYS wrong.

188

Countries that have banned birthright citizenship in the recent past. Recent is a relative term. Clearly racist nationalist had taken over their governments. Or why else would they do it? Has to be racism.

IN developed nations only two countries grant birthright citizenship, The US and Canada. No others. Not even Sweden and Switzerland. So many racist countries.

whilst there are less developed nations that grant birthright citizenship only two countries do it for travelers and illegal aliens. The US is one of them. Canada the other.

Proof that Republicans are racist.

189

Red herring.

If Trump wants to ban birthright citizenship, he has to do it through our constitutional processes.

THIS is what is being debated and nothing else.

Once we agree that Trump is wrong that it can be done via EO or act of Congress, THEN we can have this debate about whether we should do it.