"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

[FastLane]

How Amendments are “interpreted” and how they are changed are two different things, and don’t be so sure based upon an “interpretation” of Eastman that this is the way they will decide, we’ve seen how fast other Eastman “interpretations” sunk

Read Elk v Wilkins

 

[FastLane]

So, what’s your point

Why was the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (AKA Snyder Act) needed at all?

 

[FastLane]

No, this Constitutional right has served our country well.
I have no interest in what Eastman claims.

It seems pretty clear to me

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”

You forgot a qualifier. Why not just say all persons? Why qualify the statement?

 

[archives]

for almost 50 years you were not a citizen simply from birthright. it wasn't an amendment that changed how we view this so obviously we can change the interpretation back without one as well

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

 

[zymurgy]

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

bwahaha - so the precedent of being able to change the interpretation without an amendment has also been set

I accept your surrender

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You have to have an amendment to change the Constitution, the President can not do that, nor can the Supreme Court.

You don't need an amendment to put some restrictions on a constitutional Right. For example, how many restrictions are on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[FastLane]

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

ELK v Wilkins set a precedent Just because you are born within the territorial boundary of the US does not make you a citizen of the US.

 

[FastLane]

bwahaha - so the precedent of being able to change the interpretation without an amendment has also been set

I accept your surrender

He went down in flames.

 

[FastLane]

So the Libratards ran away. Clearly they lost the debate.

 

[Into the Night]

John Eastman, the eminent disbarred lawyer and accused felon.

There is just one way "birthright citizenship" will fall out of The Constitution and that is by the Court making the Amendment mean something it does not say.

Nothing in the Constitution grants citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring.

 

[Into the Night]

You have to have an amendment to change the Constitution, the President can not do that, nor can the Supreme Court.

Nothing needs to be amended. Nothing in the Constitution grants citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know that anyone can predict what the US Supreme Court will do. I know what they SHOULD do, but what they will do is up in the air

There is only one legal way they can rule. They have no authority to change the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution grants citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring.

 

[Into the Night]

No, this Constitutional right has served our country well.
I have no interest in what Eastman claims.

It seems pretty clear to me

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”

Illegal aliens have NO right to stay in the United States. They and their offspring are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from.

 

[Into the Night]

If the 14th amendment does what libtards demand, than explain the need for 1924 Indian Citizenship Act

your ignorance is pretty clear to me

the interpretation of the constitution and subsequent amendments change. it is called judicial review and has happened since 1803

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution. Judicial review cannot change the Constitution. The Supreme Court exceeded it's authority when granting itself judicial review of the Constitution. It has no authority to change Article III of the Constitution either.

 

[Into the Night]

for almost 50 years you were not a citizen simply from birthright. it wasn't an amendment that changed how we view this so obviously we can change the interpretation back without one as well

No such amendment.

Only people born of citizens, are citizens of the United States. The parents can be born into the United States or they can be born elsewhere and later become naturalized citizens of the United States. They have taken upon themselves the jurisdiction of the United States by doing so.

Illegal aliens are not subjects of jurisdiction of the United States. Neither are their offspring.

 

[Into the Night]

How Amendments are “interpreted” and how they are changed are two different things, and don’t be so sure based upon an “interpretation” of Eastman that this is the way they will decide, we’ve seen how fast other Eastman “interpretations” sunk

The Supreme Court has NO authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States nor ANY constitution. You are ignoring Article III again, anchovies.

 

[Into the Night]

Did however set the precedent, and the precedent has been recognized in every prior involving birthright citizenship or the extension of birthright citizenship (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html), established precedents aren’t easy to ignore

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, anchovies.

 

[archives]

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, anchovies.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, and there was no election in 2020, guns are a God given right, and Elvis was spotted last week in Vegas

 

[AProudLefty]

You don't need an amendment to put some restrictions on a constitutional Right. For example, how many restrictions are on the 2nd Amendment?

While I may agree with you about the 2nd, the babies of illegals don't make the decision to be born on American soil.

AI Overview






For people born in the U.S., a birth certificate issued by the state is generally sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

While I may agree with you about the 2nd, the babies of illegals don't make the decision to be born on American soil.

AI Overview
View attachment 49968
View attachment 49969
View attachment 49970

View attachment 49971

For people born in the U.S., a birth certificate issued by the state is generally sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.

So? Their parents shouldn't profit from a crime either. Let the child return when they reach 18 years of age. If that's a problem, suggest they take it up with their criminal parents.