Second Amendment - incorrectly interpreted.

Earl said:
Lots of luck with that.

S.C. 5-4 conservative.
Click to expand...
That will change, it always does. My only point is that The Felon is trying to do to the Constitution what you have often accused liberals of doing. You do not care when you like the result.
 
Jarod said:
That will change, it always does. My only point is that The Felon is trying to do to the Constitution what you have often accused liberals of doing. You do not care when you like the result.
Click to expand...
Original intent…do you really believe that the Founders meant for a person to enter illegally, drop a baby and earn citizenship?

Really?

The odds are looking very favorable that the Fourteenth will be correctly adjudicated…soon.
 
Jarod said:
And the framers of the 14th's CLEARLY intended for Jurisdiction to grant citizenship to those born in the United States.
Click to expand...
Why are wide open borders and anchor babies so important for you to have?

Not a one of you has answered that yet.
 
Jarod said:
That will change, it always does. My only point is that The Felon is trying to do to the Constitution what you have often accused liberals of doing. You do not care when you like the result.
Click to expand...
You people care less about the constitution than you do the lives of unborn children.

So cut the crap already.
 
Earl said:
The SC has not adjuducated Birthright Citizenship yet.

We shall see.

This settled gun ownership:

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts​

View attachment 43280
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › event › District-of-Columb...




Dec 17, 2024 — Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess ...
Click to expand...
They will not take the case. Birthright hass a clear definition that cannot be ignored, even to please King Trump. There is a process to change the Constutution. It was made deliberately difficult by the founders.
 
Earl said:
Original intent…do you really believe that the Founders meant for a person to enter illegally, drop a baby and earn citizenship?

Really?

The odds are looking very favorable that the Fourteenth will be correctly adjudicated…soon.
Click to expand...
the baby gets citizenship, not the one that dropped it. correct?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the desire for authoritarianism is strong in you.

the bottom line is that the founders created a restricted federal government with limited powers to provide the minimum amount of governing necessary to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. NOWHERE did the founders every believe, or decide, that the federal government gets to define the limits of it's own powers prescribed to them. By adhering to the federal government telling you it can define and redefine the limits of it's prescribed powers, you are destroying the Constitution.
Click to expand...
It’s not, the Separation of Powers and Federal system does, also created by the Founders
 
Earl said:
Original intent…do you really believe that the Founders meant for a person to enter illegally, drop a baby and earn citizenship?

Really?

The odds are looking very favorable that the Fourteenth will be correctly adjudicated…soon.
Click to expand...
Why did they write it so?

I think the odds are that the 14th will remain like it is.
 
Nordberg said:
They will not take the case. Birthright hass a clear definition that cannot be ignored, even to please King Trump. There is a process to change the Constutution. It was made deliberately difficult by the founders.
Click to expand...
It’s not a change, it’s an accurate interpretation.

You come illegally, drop a baby, you do not get citizenship.
 
Jarod said:
Clearly the Founders did not intend for violent criminals to have access to the type of rifles available today.
Click to expand...
I doubt they wanted criminals to have guns at all.
Jarod said:
"Arms" do not include simi or fully automatic rifles.
Click to expand...
Based on what exactly? Be specific.
Jarod said:
"Abridged" does not mean you cant shorten or limit, it just means Abridged in the sense of early English standards.
Click to expand...
The word "abridged" doesn't appear in the Second Amendment.
Jarod said:
It does not include individual home ownership, but what can be locked in an armory.
Click to expand...
Where does it say anything even remotely related to this fiction? You are just making shit up.
 
archives said:
Wrong, if you ever took to actually read the majority opinion, the primary sources, it offers parameters and isn’t intended to be absolute. As Scalia put it as the author, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Click to expand...
Then why didn't they include that in the language?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top