Your like a greased pig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeajh, back to the meaning Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > know nothing, no nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Conservative court Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Mystery play Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > This is going right to the Conservative
> > > Supreme
> > > > > Court. Kavanagh has Donald's back. Even
> if
> > > the
> > > > > Democrats gain the House Majority, this
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > upheld. Mr. President, Trump is the
> > smartest
> > > > > President in our recent History!
> > > >
> > > > A Conservative court wouldn't change the
> > > > longstanding interpretation of the 14th
> > > Amendment
> > > > over a modern day problem. That would be
> the
> > > exact
> > > > opposite of Conservative behavior. I can't
> > > speak
> > > > for Kavanagh, but Roberts and Gorsuch would
> > > never
> > > > go along with it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again showing you know nothing about what you
> > > write. A conservative court will go back to
> > the
> > > meaning of the law at the time it was written.
>
> > In
> > > this case (and as has been shown to your
> empty
> > > skull here), there is amble evidence of the
> > > meaning of this law by the author himself.
> > > Roberts is most definitely the wild card on
> > this.
> > > Trump will have 4 solid votes for his action
> and
> > 4
> > > against. Roberts will be the swing vote.
> >
> > The Amendment is tied largely with the word
> > "Jurisdiction'. The meaning of Jurisdiction at
> the
> > time was largely to mean within the reach of
> the
> > Law, which clearly anyone within the physical
> > boundaries of the United States would be.
> Sorry.
> > No case here. Some statements made MID-DEBATE
> > while going over what might or might not be in
> the
> > final product doesn't qualify as "Ample
> > Evidence".
> >
> > Don't like the 14th Amendment? Pass another
> one.
>
>
> Wrong. The word jurisdiction, as was pointed out
> above, means what the founding fathers said it
> meant. No allegiance to another power. It had
> very little to do with the reach of the law.
>
> This will all be proven in a year when the SCOTUS
> upholds Trump's actions 5-4. Your feeble attempt
> at ruling on this matter in a backwater web forum
> notwithstanding. You've become tiresomely
> repetitive and senseless. I'll move on now so you
> can continue to make up facts, disregard facts
> presented and pat yourself on the back for getting
> the last post in, no matter how lame it is. See
> ya gramps.
Nope. Settled Law by a wide margin 6-2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
And if you think this would be re-litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and ruled on within one year, it just proves you are an Idiot.