The Accurate Reloading Forums
trump's birthright EO dead in the water
05 February 2025, 21:53
Mike Mitchelltrump's birthright EO dead in the water
A second federal judge has issued a temporary injunction noting in her order that:
>>the plaintiffs would “very likely” succeed on the merits in their case against Trump’s order, which she said “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”
Boardman said Supreme Court precedent protects birthright citizenship.
“No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation,” she said. “This court will not be the first.”
05 February 2025, 22:26
300shooterGetting harder for the convicted felon mother fucker to destroy the constitution.
But he's still destroying American society.
05 February 2025, 23:31
M.ShyPardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
Never been lost, just confused here and there for month or two
05 February 2025, 23:33
medvedquote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
Pardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
luckily for you the over 40 millions of canadians declined your lovely invitation ...
06 February 2025, 00:09
JTEXLets get this 14th amendment issue to the supreme court...
There is quite a bit of difference between "in the jurisdiction" and "under the jurisdiction".....
Precedent does mean correct......And intent matters....
06 February 2025, 02:28
Mike MitchellBirthright citizenship has already been to the SCOTUS. More than once.
06 February 2025, 02:59
M.Shyquote:
Originally posted by medved:
quote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
Pardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
luckily for you the over 40 millions of
canadians declined your lovely invitation ...
And this has got nothing to do with Canadians
Never been lost, just confused here and there for month or two
06 February 2025, 03:04
medvedquote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
quote:
Originally posted by medved:
quote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
Pardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
luckily for you the over 40 millions of
canadians declined your lovely invitation ...
And this has got nothing to do with Canadians
so canada is not part of the world lol ...
your written words here:
Pardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
06 February 2025, 03:04
LongDistanceOperatorquote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
Pardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
I guarantee you are a brainwashed cult follower. Wake up and smell the god damned coffee.
06 February 2025, 03:09
crbutlerWhile I think we should not be granting children of noncitizens/ permanent residents birthright citizenship, I also believe that the only way to do it is by a constitutional amendment.
I do think most citizens would support that.
06 February 2025, 05:44
Saeedquote:
Originally posted by 300shooter:
Getting harder for the convicted felon mother fucker to destroy the constitution.
But he's still destroying American society.
Careful!
He is your RULER!
24 February 2025, 02:43
jeffeossoquote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
A second federal judge has issued a temporary injunction noting in her order that:
>>the plaintiffs would “very likely” succeed on the merits in their case against Trump’s order, which she said “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”
Boardman said Supreme Court precedent protects birthright citizenship.
“No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation,” she said. “This court will not be the first.”
oh, i think trump loses this one, as without a real law behind it, facing a full judicial review, it's a loser eo
say -- didn't it take a FULL act of congress, over 50 years after the passing of the 14th to include Indians in that birthright citizenship back in the day?
oh, this in an inconvenient fact
https://constitutioncenter.org...ited-states-citizens24 February 2025, 02:55
LHeym500quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
Lets get this 14th amendment issue to the supreme court...
There is quite a bit of difference between "in the jurisdiction" and "under the jurisdiction".....
Precedent does mean correct......And intent matters....
It already has been multiple times.
The issue here is narrow, Whether the President by Executive Order can void Supreme Court precedent controlling the Constitution.
The answer is a resound no.
Trump can no more void this interpretation of the 14th Amendment than Obama and Biden could void the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by executive order. They had the education and the restraint not to try.
24 February 2025, 08:50
TomPquote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
Pardon me, IMO Dems destroying American society by allowing everyone in
Are we going to invite whole world here?
Guarantee you that every American thinks like Trump in that matter
An idea to expose to light and air. It remains to be seen how the electorate instructs its Congress.
TomP
Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.
Carl Schurz (1829 - 1906)
24 February 2025, 10:01
RolandtheHeadlessquote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
Lets get this 14th amendment issue to the supreme court...
There is quite a bit of difference between "in the jurisdiction" and "under the jurisdiction".....
Precedent does mean correct......And intent matters....
I never thought of you as a Constitutional scholar, but let's pretend that you are. Could you explain the difference between "in the jurisdiction" and "under the jurisdiction"? Regardless, the Fourteenth Amendment says "under," right?
How do you get around years of Republicans' arguments against activist judges who read the Constitution contrary to its plain meaning?
Or does that reasoning only apply when it serves your agenda?
24 February 2025, 17:05
jeffeossoquote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
Lets get this 14th amendment issue to the supreme court...
There is quite a bit of difference between "in the jurisdiction" and "under the jurisdiction".....
Precedent does mean correct......And intent matters....
I never thought of you as a Constitutional scholar, but let's pretend that you are. Could you explain the difference between "in the jurisdiction" and "under the jurisdiction"? Regardless, the Fourteenth Amendment says "under," right?
How do you get around years of Republicans' arguments against activist judges who read the Constitution contrary to its plain meaning?
Or does that reasoning only apply when it serves your agenda?
i know your google-fu is weak, honey --
here you go
https://constitutioncenter.org...ited-states-citizensthis event CLEARLY shows that being born within the borders of the US does not make a citizen make ... hence the confusion