When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 the United States had many territories, people within the territories were US citizens from states that existed and non citizens from other areas, when each state joined the union the people present within that state considered "citizens" of the state, became US citizens of that state, the 14th amendment was passed to insure these states citizens became US citizens as states joined the union after 1868

Today all the southern border states are states, along with all the 50 states of the union not territories, illegals are illegal, they are criminals because they illegally entered the US and their children born in the United States are not US citizens as a result

Democrats would agree completely if the illegals would not some day be voting for them and we all know it.

The 14th Amendment could have been much more narrowly written if that was the intent.

Rather, the framers wanted to insure that you could never manufacture people of lesser rights (non-citizens) in this country, a hallmark of slavery. They never imagined a world where wave after wave of people would want to move here and have babies to gain government provided benefits (at the time, even public schooling wasn't a given).

So yeah, the 14th Amendment makes sure anyone born in this country is a citizen, except those born to diplomats. Don't like it. Pass a Constitutional Amendmemt.

Nope.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 14th Amendment could have been much more
> narrowly written if that was the intent.
>
> Rather, the framers wanted to insure that you
> could never manufacture people of lesser rights
> (non-citizens) in this country, a hallmark of
> slavery. They never imagined a world where wave
> after wave of people would want to move here and
> have babies to gain government provided benefits
> (at the time, even public schooling wasn't a
> given).
>
> So yeah, the 14th Amendment makes sure anyone born
> in this country is a citizen, except those born to
> diplomats. Don't like it. Pass a Constitutional
> Amendmemt.


Then why did Congress have to pass a The Indian Citizenship Act to make American Indians US citizens 50 years after the 14th amendment was passed? They were all born here but weren't considered citizens until that law was passed. Moron.

Because of the American Indians who live on reservations and thus aren't subject to US Jurisdiction, which is a qualifier of the 14th Amendment. Moron.


Failure to launch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope.... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The 14th Amendment could have been much more
> > narrowly written if that was the intent.
> >
> > Rather, the framers wanted to insure that you
> > could never manufacture people of lesser rights
> > (non-citizens) in this country, a hallmark of
> > slavery. They never imagined a world where wave
> > after wave of people would want to move here
> and
> > have babies to gain government provided
> benefits
> > (at the time, even public schooling wasn't a
> > given).
> >
> > So yeah, the 14th Amendment makes sure anyone
> born
> > in this country is a citizen, except those born
> to
> > diplomats. Don't like it. Pass a Constitutional
> > Amendmemt.
>
>
> Then why did Congress have to pass a The Indian
> Citizenship Act to make American Indians US
> citizens 50 years after the 14th amendment was
> passed? They were all born here but weren't
> considered citizens until that law was passed.
> Moron.

Take It To Scotus When Its 6-3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 the
> United States had many territories, people within
> the territories were US citizens from states that
> existed and non citizens from other areas, when
> each state joined the union the people present
> within that state considered "citizens" of the
> state, became US citizens of that state, the 14th
> amendment was passed to insure these states
> citizens became US citizens as states joined the
> union after 1868
>
> Today all the southern border states are states,
> along with all the 50 states of the union not
> territories, illegals are illegal, they are
> criminals because they illegally entered the US
> and their children born in the United States are
> not US citizens as a result
>
> Democrats would agree completely if the illegals
> would not some day be voting for them and we all
> know it.

Careful there, Sunny Jim -- if we're going to start interpreting Amendments based on how circumstances were at the time, say goodbye to the 2nd...

Logic much? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take It To Scotus When Its 6-3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868
> the
> > United States had many territories, people
> within
> > the territories were US citizens from states
> that
> > existed and non citizens from other areas, when
> > each state joined the union the people present
> > within that state considered "citizens" of the
> > state, became US citizens of that state, the
> 14th
> > amendment was passed to insure these states
> > citizens became US citizens as states joined
> the
> > union after 1868
> >
> > Today all the southern border states are
> states,
> > along with all the 50 states of the union not
> > territories, illegals are illegal, they are
> > criminals because they illegally entered the US
> > and their children born in the United States
> are
> > not US citizens as a result
> >
> > Democrats would agree completely if the
> illegals
> > would not some day be voting for them and we
> all
> > know it.
>
> Careful there, Sunny Jim -- if we're going to
> start interpreting Amendments based on how
> circumstances were at the time, say goodbye to the
> 2nd...

The truth is the intent was to have every person born in this country a United States citizen. Tens of thousands of people died in warfare over the practice of slavery and the winners were going to be damned to let slavery sneak back into the mix somehow. Making sure every baby born was a free citizen, then and forever, was a very good measure to insure slavery would never again get a foothold.

That's a conservative reading of how it is written.

Take It To Scotus When Its 6-3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 the
> United States had many territories, people within
> the territories were US citizens from states that
> existed and non citizens from other areas, when
> each state joined the union the people present
> within that state considered "citizens" of the
> state, became US citizens of that state, the 14th
> amendment was passed to insure these states
> citizens became US citizens as states joined the
> union after 1868
>
> Today all the southern border states are states,
> along with all the 50 states of the union not
> territories, illegals are illegal, they are
> criminals because they illegally entered the US
> and their children born in the United States are
> not US citizens as a result
>
> Democrats would agree completely if the illegals
> would not some day be voting for them and we all
> know it.


So, why are you such a coward?

>except those born to diplomats

as well foreign national criminals illegally here ?

The Wondering Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >except those born to diplomats
>
> as well foreign national criminals illegally here
> ?
Nope. Because such a concept didn't exist back then. Mass citizenships from undocumented aliens was an unforeseen problem that really only came to be fruition as the United States actually became prosperous.

Anyone born on US soil, sans children of diplomats, are subject to US Jurisdiction and are thus citizens. Case closed.

Accepted that children of illegals are US citizens when they are born on US soil, but the parent or parents are not and can be sent back home, they may take the child with them back home or leave the child to be cared for by a legal US guardian or put up for adoption by US citizens as soon as they apply for any welfare benefits or are shown the door as illegals with asylum denied, no automatic green card or visa allowed because they are the parents , The child is eligible for such welfare benefits as a US citizen if there guardians or adopted parents have low incomes that qualify

Or if the child is disabled and qualifies for social security benefits regardless of guardians or adopted parents income

Yes Or No ??

The Fourteenth reads as it reads and the court decisions are clear. Unless you are born of foreign diplomats, if you are born here, you are an United States Citizen.

If The Donald does not like it, he must either get a court ruling to the contrary or have the Fourteenth modified according to established procedure.

Until either one of those occurs, if you is born here, you izzuh sittizinn

It is always fun to read the legal theories some have invented. Some here would like us to believe that until bleeding heart liberal justices came along in the sixties nobody believed anchor babies were American citizens. Others would want us to believe that courts faced with hordes of undesirable foreign invader/immigrants would not support the idea that anchor babies were U.S. citizens. They would both be wrong.

In the aftermath of the passage of the 14th Amendment there were several cases in which the status of U.S. born individuals born to foreign parents was challenged. In each of these cases the courts held that the U.S. born individual was a U.S. citizen. These cases in turn relied in part on U.S. and English cases decided before the adoption of the 14th Amendment which recognized birthright citizenship. At least one of those older cases involved a child born to parents who were only temporarily in the U.S. In 1898 one of those cases made it to the Supreme Court. In that case as the dissent pointed out the parents of the U.S. born child were foreign citizens who were ineligible for U.S. citizenship when the child was born. The SCOTUS filled with conservative justices ruled 6 to 2 that the child was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Subsequent lower court decisions have come to the same conclusion.

In the late 19th century the feared invading horde were the Chinese. Many of those post 14th Amendment court decisions involved U.S. born children of Chinese descent. The Supreme Court case was one such case. During WW2 the feared foreigners were the Japanese. An effort was made to deny U.S. citizenship to J
U.S. born children of Japanese citizen parents. Those cases also failed.

Are children born in detention camps while awaiting deportation citizens. Are children born at JFK while the mother is waiting on a connecting flight. The child born to a Mexican citizen mother here illegally who has made it past these border points and is working as a maid in McLean is a U.S. citizen.

>At least one of those older cases involved a child born to parents who were only temporarily in the U.S.

Where those parents here temporarily, legally present or illegally present

>.Many of those post 14th Amendment court decisions involved U.S. born children of Chinese descent. The Supreme Court case was one such case. During WW2 the feared foreigners were the Japanese. An effort was made to deny U.S. citizenship to U.S. born children of Japanese citizen parents. Those cases also failed.

Again the parents presence in the US , legal or illegal ?? In all these cases you state the parents had legal standing to be here even if such presence was temporary, Chinese could not walk across the border illegally, nor could Japanese or the British

"The Donald" has a case before SCOTUS

The Question Before The Court Is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >At least one of those older cases involved a
> child born to parents who were only temporarily in
> the U.S.
>
> Where those parents here temporarily, legally
> present or illegally present
>
> >.Many of those post 14th Amendment court
> decisions involved U.S. born children of Chinese
> descent. The Supreme Court case was one such case.
> During WW2 the feared foreigners were the
> Japanese. An effort was made to deny U.S.
> citizenship to U.S. born children of Japanese
> citizen parents. Those cases also failed.
>
> Again the parents presence in the US , legal or
> illegal ?? In all these cases you state the
> parents had legal standing to be here even if such
> presence was temporary, Chinese could not walk
> across the border illegally, nor could Japanese or
> the British
>
> "The Donald" has a case before SCOTUS

No he doesn't. Undocumented immigrants are subject to US Jurisdiction when they are herez, as are their babies. If the baby is born here he or she is a US Citizen. Trump has no case.

Short answer is yes some were born to parents who were here illegally. The cases don't turn on whether the parents were here legally. Well into the 20th century it did not matter much whether a foreign citizen had entered the U.S. legally or illegally.

Don't assume anything about how difficult it was to get here. Brits could and did travel to Canada and then cross the border. After Japanese were barred from immigrating to the U.S. one dodge was to get papers allowing the to travel to the U.S. territory of Hawaii and the take ships to the mainland U.S. and skip processing.

That's why we had to put them all into camps.

We need to do that again for Central American invaders.

No not really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No he doesn't. Undocumented immigrants are subject
> to US Jurisdiction when they are herez, as are
> their babies. If the baby is born here he or she
> is a US Citizen.

Actually, the courts have held that the baby must be here
for a certain period of time. Not sure how long, but in
the case of someone who runs into the country, plops out
a little fleshturd, and has no intention of either themeselves
ir the baby to be citizens, and hops right back on a jet to Europe...
no dice. That baby will not be a citizen.

You can look up the case if you're interested.

But all those Hondurans are certainly intending to stay,
and will tell you that for them and all those thousands
of babies they are carrying in their wombs, it's all
about citizenship and they intend to stay, one way or another.

It's obvious that Trump can't change the law with an EO.
And it's going to be a tough and interesting legal argument
if Congress wants to change the law. Supposing they could
get it through the Senate -- it will be tied up in the Supreme Court.
And it will probably fail. Because despite all the interesting
arguments and valid and bogus points, the USSC is going to just
say that if Congress really wants to change it, then they should
do it by Constitutional Amendment. And that won't ever happen.

This is why there is supposed to be a wall...

You are the moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because of the American Indians who live on
> reservations and thus aren't subject to US
> Jurisdiction, which is a qualifier of the 14th
> Amendment. Moron.
>
>
> Failure to launch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nope.... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The 14th Amendment could have been much more
> > > narrowly written if that was the intent.
> > >
> > > Rather, the framers wanted to insure that you
> > > could never manufacture people of lesser
> rights
> > > (non-citizens) in this country, a hallmark of
> > > slavery. They never imagined a world where
> wave
> > > after wave of people would want to move here
> > and
> > > have babies to gain government provided
> > benefits
> > > (at the time, even public schooling wasn't a
> > > given).
> > >
> > > So yeah, the 14th Amendment makes sure anyone
> > born
> > > in this country is a citizen, except those
> born
> > to
> > > diplomats. Don't like it. Pass a
> Constitutional
> > > Amendmemt.
> >
> >
> > Then why did Congress have to pass a The Indian
> > Citizenship Act to make American Indians US
> > citizens 50 years after the 14th amendment was
> > passed? They were all born here but weren't
> > considered citizens until that law was passed.
> > Moron.


Then why did Jacob Howard, the guy who wrote the 14th Amendment and shepherd it through the Senate to get it passed specifically say that the rights of the amendment 100% are not confirmed on 'aliens' in this country?

And why did the founders define 'under the jurisdiction of the US' as having no “allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever.” Not just people who happen to be on US soil at any given time, like when they give birth.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You are truly a moron.

Logic much? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Careful there, Sunny Jim -- if we're going to
> start interpreting Amendments based on how
> circumstances were at the time, say goodbye to the
> 2nd...


Defend that argument retard. It's you pantywaist liberals who want to interpret the constitution based on today's norms, not what the founders intended. Luckily, we can read what those who write and pass laws and amendments intend, so we know exactly what they meant.

Heller retard. It's been confirmed within the last 5 years. My gosh you are one uninformed idiot.

Based in the past Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Wondering Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >except those born to diplomats
> >
> > as well foreign national criminals illegally
> here
> > ?
> Nope. Because such a concept didn't exist back
> then. Mass citizenships from undocumented aliens
> was an unforeseen problem that really only came to
> be fruition as the United States actually became
> prosperous.
>
> Anyone born on US soil, sans children of
> diplomats, are subject to US Jurisdiction and are
> thus citizens. Case closed.


Wrong. So horribly wrong. So terribly uninformed and wrong. Where do you get our facts. Try the Internet, it's full of them.

Sen. Jacob Howard (author of the 14th Amendment):

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

The Question Before The Court Is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where those parents here temporarily, legally present
> or illegally present

It doesn't matter. US jurisdiction is US jurisdiction. At that, being unable to demonstrate proper immigration status is indeed a status crime. It's something like being pulled over after having left your driver's license at home.

> "The Donald" has a case before SCOTUS

No, he has no case at all. The Fucking Donald thinks he's Emperor of the World, but he's actually just the head of a large international crime family.

Hogwash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Defend that argument retard. It's you pantywaist liberals who
> want to interpret the constitution based on today's norms, not
> what the founders intended.

What the founders intended in 1787 promises that later became the 2nd Amendment was assurance to slave-owning states that Congress would not use its new power to arm and regulate the militia as a back-door means of ending slavery.

By the way, in 95% of its then-current usage, 'bear arms' appeared in a military context. When a civilian context was intended, 'carry weapons' was used 95% of the time.

Failure to launch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Then why did Congress have to pass a The Indian
> Citizenship Act to make American Indians US
> citizens 50 years after the 14th amendment was
> passed? They were all born here but weren't
> considered citizens until that law was passed.
> Moron.

Indians were citizens of their nations before the Indian Citizenship Act. Those Indian nations existed within the territorial boundaries of the U.S., were subject to U.S. dominion and control to the extent U.S. had the ability to do so, but they were not a part of the U.S. This status would have made more sense to those in the 18th and 19th century than it does to us today.

Sign of the times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hogwash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> What the founders intended in 1787 promises that
> later became the 2nd Amendment was assurance to
> slave-owning states that Congress would not use
> its new power to arm and regulate the militia as a
> back-door means of ending slavery.
>
> >
>
>



Are you STILL shitposting this BS drekk? At least 5 posters have proven you wrong i other threads and you got completely PWND when you got into it with them. Not to mention how many times you got trolled for it. You don't get it, do you? Maybe 10 people on FFXU buy your BS, but nobody whose mental capacities are over 5th grade does. Why don't you go to some libTARD message board and try to sell it to the NPCs there? It shouldn't be hard for you, since they've already been programmed to buy it & have even bought it already. It'll give you something to get your jollys for.


We don't buy your BS here.

What the guy above me said Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Based in the past Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Wondering Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > >except those born to diplomats
> > >
> > > as well foreign national criminals illegally
> > here
> > > ?
> > Nope. Because such a concept didn't exist back
> > then. Mass citizenships from undocumented
> aliens
> > was an unforeseen problem that really only came
> to
> > be fruition as the United States actually
> became
> > prosperous.
> >
> > Anyone born on US soil, sans children of
> > diplomats, are subject to US Jurisdiction and
> are
> > thus citizens. Case closed.
>
>
> Wrong. So horribly wrong. So terribly uninformed
> and wrong. Where do you get our facts. Try the
> Internet, it's full of them.
>
> Sen. Jacob Howard (author of the 14th Amendment):
>
> “This will not, of course, include
> persons born in the United States who are
> foreigners, aliens, who belong to the
> families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> accredited to the government of the United States,
> but will include every other class of persons.”

How easy would it have been for the author to have included that text in the Amendment. Maybe it would't have gotten the votes had it been in there. Sorry, it's absence in the final taxt tells volumes. Not helping your case.

Asker of questions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you STILL shitposting this BS drekk?

You misspelled 'dreck', dummy, and that the 2nd Amendment was part of the 1787 slave compromises is a simple historical fact. Of course, ignorant stooges like you have no working knowledge of history at all and aren't aware of it.

> At least 5 posters have proven you wrong in other
> threads and you got completely PWND when you got
> into it with them.

Assholes are all the same, douche. Five...ten...fifteen...twenty. Their numbers don't matter. What matters is that they are all simply too fucking stupid to comment intelligently.

> Maybe 10 people on FFXU buy your BS, but nobody whose
> mental capacities are over 5th grade does.

LOL! You would not be among the latter group. You would be a among the group of low-grade goober assholes easily bamboozled by right-wing propaganda.

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!

It will be tossed by the first court to review it. And the second and the third and so on.

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.

OP, you "the Constitution is a Living Document democrat idiot"

Each (rights/limitations/non-procudurial) PHRASE in the Constitution draws a line between government and over-reach of government.

14th ammendment doesn't even mention illegal immigrants

that's why. it isn't even remotely fucking related is why.

The Constitution charges Congress with representing it's people: ie, not the rich of another country who don't wish to pay welfare.

You can say that with Surety.

The founders did not wish to see their descendants bound in chains forged by their ancestors. They intended that the Constitution be a living document, and so it is.

Not helping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the guy above me said Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Based in the past Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Wondering Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > >except those born to diplomats
> > > >
> > > > as well foreign national criminals
> illegally
> > > here
> > > > ?
> > > Nope. Because such a concept didn't exist
> back
> > > then. Mass citizenships from undocumented
> > aliens
> > > was an unforeseen problem that really only
> came
> > to
> > > be fruition as the United States actually
> > became
> > > prosperous.
> > >
> > > Anyone born on US soil, sans children of
> > > diplomats, are subject to US Jurisdiction and
> > are
> > > thus citizens. Case closed.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. So horribly wrong. So terribly
> uninformed
> > and wrong. Where do you get our facts. Try
> the
> > Internet, it's full of them.
> >
> > Sen. Jacob Howard (author of the 14th
> Amendment):
> >
> > “This will not, of course, include
> > persons born in the United States who are
> > foreigners, aliens, who belong to the
> > families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> > accredited to the government of the United
> States,
> > but will include every other class of
> persons.”
>
> How easy would it have been for the author to have
> included that text in the Amendment. Maybe it
> would't have gotten the votes had it been in
> there. Sorry, it's absence in the final taxt tells
> volumes. Not helping your case.


lol. You are comically bad at this. You state that the authors of the amendment had no concept of citizenship of foreign nationals having their offspring being granted citizenship by birthright. You are then shown that the fucking author of the amendment called out that very thing and said if didn't apply. You were wrong on three things in one sentence. Give it up old man, you are obviously in way over your pumpkin head here.

Pity the fools... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The founders did not wish to see their descendants
> bound in chains forged by their ancestors. They
> intended that the Constitution be a living
> document, and so it is.


Living in the sense that it can be changed (through a very onerous process). Not living in the sense that people can make up stuff and say it's in the Constitution because they want it to be in there.

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.

You're 1/4 correct Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Living in the sense that it can be changed (through a very
> onerous process). Not living in the sense that people can
> make up stuff and say it's in the Constitution because they
> want it to be in there.

For the benefit of the super-stupid: All that is implied in the Constitution is as relevant and operative as all that is stated. What is enduring in the Constitution are its principles. The particulars are ever found anew.

The citizenship clause gave individuals born in the United States -- but especially at that time, African Americans -- the right to citizenship. Before the 14th amendment, African Americans could not become citizens and this limited the rights of those that were able to escape slavery and become free. This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens. Although this right was established by the Civil Rights of 1866, this amendment made the law permanent as many feared that the law could be overturned and take away the citizenship of African Americans. Later on, the Supreme Court protected this right for the children of immigrants and the right of Native Americans to become citizens also was protected later on.

Once you have American citizenship, it cannot be taken from you by Congress or other authorities, unless you lie to government during the process to get US citizenship. Otherwise, everyone who becomes an American citizen stays an American citizen, unless they give it up themselves.

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.

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.

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.

Trumpsters think they can just wave a wand and change the world. It’s like all Cartoon Network all the time.

Where in the 14th or any where else is it written that if both parents are here illegally, they get a green card or a visa and welfare galore ?

If one parent is a US citizen , the one US parent can sponsor the illegal, different situation, minors cant sponsor anyone

Pity the fools... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The founders did not wish to see their descendants
> bound in chains forged by their ancestors. They
> intended that the Constitution be a living
> document, and so it is.

gerrymanderer2 is a DNC loving democrat that posts SEVERAL LIES ON FFU DAILY.

a Majority of Constitutionalist have sued democrats for their "living document" comments

The Sons of Liberty NEVER EVER SAID IN ANY ARTICLE OR PRIVATE WRITING they intended the consitution to be "liberally interpreted to mean whatever the current politicians wished it to mean"

go to the HELL you came from, gerrymaderer2

Yeajh, back to the meaning Wrote:

>
> Don't like the 14th Amendment? Pass another one.

exactly. but they can't because: they don't have the nearly votes to do it

And The Parents Who Are Illegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where in the 14th or any where else is it written
> that if both parents are here illegally, they get
> a green card or a visa and welfare galore ?
>
> If one parent is a US citizen , the one US parent
> can sponsor the illegal, different situation,
> minors cant sponsor anyone

Minors can't sponsor parents but as soon as they turn 21, they can, as per current immigration law.

https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens

To change that to age 1 minute ?

When Will Democrats Try Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To change that to age 1 minute ?

Minors can't enter into binding contracts. Their signatures legally aren't worth squat.

So the earliest age you would expect a revision to target would be 18.

FCPD reporting it as a bomb threat on Twitter. And they apparently have the perp.

Fiction world Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TrumpstersDemocrats think they can just wave a wand and
> change the world. It’s like all Cartoon Network
> all the time. It's also why libs smoke so much pot & crack all the time.



FIFY

Too fucking dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asker of questions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> You misspelled 'dreck', dummy, and that the 2nd
> Amendment was part of the 1787 slave compromises
> is a simple historical fact. Of course, ignorant
> stooges like you have no working knowledge of
> history at all and aren't aware of it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Assholes are all the same, douche.
> Five...ten...fifteen...twenty. Their numbers
> don't matter. What matters is that they are all
> simply too fucking stupid to comment
> intelligently.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> LOL! You would not be among the latter group.
> You would be a among the group of low-grade goober
> assholes easily bamboozled by right-wing
> propaganda.



I deliberately misspelled it, dumbfuck, to show how incredibly stupid and wrong your shitposts are. This 2A and slave compromise BS is something the left is trying to do to paint 2A as racist and it only works on leftie dupes like your loser ass. Nobody with any brains buys it only stupid fucks like you who listen to NPCNN and that butt pirate Don Lemon or Dikey Rachel MADCOW and MSNPC buy it b/c it's programmed into your empty heads. It's total bullshit and you're not getting our guns by telling us our right to have them is racist. You've been proven wrong by a lot of posters but since it conflicts with your libtomaton programming, it just doesn't compute. Face it, pantyboy, you've been PWND and PWND a couple of times on it. We don't buy your made up revisionist so called history. It's BS, total BS and nothing but BS & your loser shitposts aren't going to make it fact.


They're only "assholes" b/c they don't agree with you and proved you wrong, loser, and you're butthurt over being proven a no brain Democrat stooge. So you keep up your shitposts even though you know nobody buys your drekk (which I spelled wrong on purpose, b/c you're an ignoramus) b/c you're too stupid & too mindless to do anything but what your doggie trainers programmed you to do.



WRONG AGAIN, buttwipe!! It's you who's the low grade goober buttream who got bamboozled into getting programmed to spew the BS your leftie doggie trainers put in you.


Face it, stupid ass, you've been PWND repeatedly because all you have to sell is BS and everybody except like mindless libtomatons sees thru it.

Hang it up, pantyboy, your BS is transparent. Take your libtard nonsense somewhere somebody wants to buy it.

What a moronic stupid jackoff.

Too fucking dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You misspelled 'dreck', dummy, and that the 2nd
> Amendment was part of the 1787 slave compromises
> is a simple historical fact. Of course, ignorant
> stooges like you have no working knowledge of
> history at all and aren't aware of it.

> Assholes are all the same, douche.
> Five...ten...fifteen...twenty. Their numbers
> don't matter. What matters is that they are all
> simply too fucking stupid to comment
> intelligently.

> LOL! You would not be among the latter group.
> You would be a among the group of low-grade goober
> assholes easily bamboozled by right-wing
> propaganda.



^^^
Obvious troll is obvious.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will be tossed by the first court to review it.
> And the second and the third and so on.


Exactly. Nothing is going to change no matter how much the conservatives hold their breath and stamp their feet. We are still riding the wave in our growth based economy and we need all the new little citizens we can get as 83% of them grow up to be good tax paying citizens. With the birth rate down and death rate going up we need more taxpayers any way we can get them. Children of immigrants grow up to be right thinking liberal voters too! Win-Win!

GQ5V3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious dumbfuck is obvious. There is no way for you to cloak your abject stupidity. It glows from behind every ignorant post you make.

Spot the dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GQ5V3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obvious troll is obvious.
>
> Obvious dumbfuck is obvious. There is no way for
> you to cloak your abject stupidity. It glows from
> behind every ignorant post you make.


Oh no! Somebody got all triggered. Funny.

Spot the dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GQ5V3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obvious troll is obvious.
>
> Obvious dumbfuck is obvious. There is no way for
> you to cloak your abject stupidity. It glows from
> behind every ignorant post you make.


^^^Obvious troll is still obvious and not much of a troll to boot.

taxpayer 8605 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. Nothing is going to change no matter how
> much the conservatives hold their breath and stamp
> their feet.

"Government by tantrum" has never been highly thought of. The right keeps trying it anyway though.

> We are still riding the wave in our growth based economy
> and we need all the new little citizens we can get as
> 83% of them grow up to be good tax paying citizens. With
> the birth rate down and death rate going up we need more
> taxpayers any way we can get them. Children of immigrants
> grow up to be right thinking liberal voters too! Win-Win!

Yes, perhaps the biggest economic advantage that the US has over the likes of China, Japan, Korea, and the big names of Europe is a conveniently located pool of young, healthy, energetic workers that can be pulled into our labor force as needed. This will help keep our median age and health care costs under control as time goes by. It will of course also significantly diminish our median whiteness as a society, yet another good thing for the country.

GQ5V3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh no! Somebody got all triggered. Funny.

^^^ This is stupid.

GQ5V3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^Obvious troll is still obvious and not much of
> a troll to boot.

^^^ This is stupid too. Stupid is actually all you can do/

GQ5V3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spot the dumbfuck Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GQ5V3 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obvious troll is obvious.
> >
> > Obvious dumbfuck is obvious. There is no way
> for
> > you to cloak your abject stupidity. It glows
> from
> > behind every ignorant post you make.
>
>
> Oh no! Somebody got all triggered. Funny.


It's pssible he's trying to be a know it all nasty little troll & he fails at it it real bad.


Somebody outed him on another thread, it might even have been on that other troll board here. If the out is true & he's retired Infernal Revenue & he's telling the truth in the hints about his age, & if he was career, when he got hired by Infernal Revenue it was before Bush Sr. and the "Kinder, Gentler IRS". While the Infernal Revenue employees are still assholes, back then, it was your job to be an abject asshole if you worked for IRS. NOw it's you job to only be a standard asshole, but back then, your job was to be a real abject nasty asshole. This would explain his assholyness if he's not really a troll like that other guy says.


It seems to be more the troll, though, b/c you can make up shit & even post it on social media & the anonymity of the internet lets you get away with it. I'd vote more for troll on this guy, but he might be what that guy who outed him says he is. Whatever he is, he's a nasty little cocksucker & you can't have an intelligent discussion with him. The only time he's civil is if you agree totally with everything he says. He'd fit right in here.

Ponderer of items. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd vote more for troll on this guy...

Ohhhh nooooo! Wrong vote entirely. The correct answer was "Poster who is much smarter and more experienced than you." We have some lovely parting gifts for you though -- starting with a swift kick in the ass and getting worse and worse for you from there.

Spot the dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GQ5V3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh no! Somebody got all triggered. Funny.
>
> ^^^ This is stupid.


^^^Ur stupid. A stupid little nasty turd burglar.

Spot the dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GQ5V3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^Obvious troll is still obvious and not much
> of
> > a troll to boot.
>
> ^^^ This is stupid too. Stupid is actually all
> you can do/


^^^This is the work of a nasty little turd burglar too & a stupid turd borglar to boot. All he can do is troll real bad and shitpost dumbass stuff.

Spot the stupid douche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ponderer of items. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd vote more for troll on this guy...
>
> Ohhhh noooooYeSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!! Wrongright vote entirely. The incorrect
> answer was "Poster who is much smarter and more
> experienced than you." We have some lovely
> parting gifts for youI'm a nasty little fudge packer troll, though -- who deserves whatever shit he gets starting with a
> swift kick in the ass and getting worse and worse
> for youthem from there.


FIFY

FIFY = ASSHOLE. A really big ASSHOLE.

See how they run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FIFY = ASSHOLE. A really big ASSHOLE.


I ain't runnin' nowhere, especially when I get somewhere 2 live rent-free!

Ur a pretty clever troll, ain't you, lettin' not just the regular asshole but the real big asshole live in Ur head rent-free!

You’re right about not going anywhere. Your whole life is one big dead end. Enjoy the FAIL.

Hogwash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Defend that argument retard. It's you pantywaist
> liberals who want to interpret the constitution
> based on today's norms, not what the founders
> intended. Luckily, we can read what those who
> write and pass laws and amendments intend, so we
> know exactly what they meant.
>
> Heller retard. It's been confirmed within the
> last 5 years. My gosh you are one uninformed
> idiot.

My but someone is hostile and triggered. The argument applies, notwithstanding your childish vitriol.

See how they run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’re right about not going anywhere. {b]And as long as I'm providing you a place to live rent free, why should you? M[/b]Your
> whole life is one big dead end. I Enjoy the FAIL.


FIFY

See how they run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’re right about not going anywhere. aND AS LONG as I'm providing you a place to live rent free, why should you? mYour
> whole life is one big dead end. I Enjoy the FAIL.


FIFY


Register THAt one, buttwipe!

Logic much? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My but someone is hostile and triggered. The
> argument applies, notwithstanding your childish
> vitriol.


He's right. You're wrong. Childish vitriol notwithstanding.

Doesn't matter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logic much? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > My but someone is hostile and triggered. The
> > argument applies, notwithstanding your childish
> > vitriol.
>
>
> He's right. You're wrong. Childish vitriol
> notwithstanding.



This guy who's using "Logic much?" as an ID in this particular post, is a real hypocrite. He calls everybody childish but acts childish himself. You called it right when you called his shitpost "childish vitriol". He has the emotional and mental development of a 5th grader. Just like everybody else on the internet, he has a high income, vast estates, superior education, you know how it goes.

He calls people out for calling him or other libs names, but then does it himself. He picks fights with other posters for no reason then gets totally PWND. He's even dumber than Gerry from that other board and you have to work real hard to be dumber than Gerry. He's also worse of a hypocrite than Gerry, and you have to work real hard to be that, too, but he manages it,

Pointer outer of things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't matter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Logic much? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > My but someone is hostile and triggered. The
> > > argument applies, notwithstanding your
> childish
> > > vitriol.
> >
> >
> > He's right. You're wrong. Childish vitriol
> > notwithstanding.
>
>
>
> This guy who's using "Logic much?" as an ID in
> this particular post, is a real hypocrite. He
> calls everybody childish but acts childish
> himself. You called it right when you called his
> shitpost "childish vitriol". He has the emotional
> and mental development of a 5th grader. Just like
> everybody else on the internet, he has a high
> income, vast estates, superior education, you know
> how it goes.
>
> He calls people out for calling him or other libs
> names, but then does it himself. He picks fights
> with other posters for no reason then gets totally
> PWND. He's even dumber than Gerry from that other
> board and you have to work real hard to be dumber
> than Gerry. He's also worse of a hypocrite than
> Gerry, and you have to work real hard to be that,
> too, but he manages it,


^^^You could have saved all that typing by just saying "obvious troll is obvious".

I love it when the content-free fathead posters whine over someone having registered their silly ass handles. The furious fail just boils over at that point.

See how they run... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love it when the content-free fathead posters
> whine over someone having registered their silly
> ass handles. The furious fail just boils over at
> that point.


Nobody's whining , moron, we're just laughing at your amateur bullshit. Register all of 'em, I got thousands more!
what a useless little turd burglar.


MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!