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

Damocles said:
Yet they were not,
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Their citizenship by birth in the US was an inalienable right that preceded the Constitution. What happened was that they were nonetheless denied their inalienable rights by people who did not adhere to the 14th Amendment. Just as with the issue of slavery, the incorrect attitude changed over time, accompanied by legislation reflective of the evolving attitude.

They were citizens, but they were denied their rights. They aren't the first persons to whom that has happened.

Damocles said:
until a law was passed in 1924,
Click to expand...
That law came into existence to correct the Supreme Court's very poor decision. The Supreme Court must apply the law; Congress gave SOCTUS a new law to correct that and all subsequent decisions.
 
IBDaMann said:
Incorrect. Their citizenship by birth in the US was an inalienable right that preceded the Constitution. What happened was that they were nonetheless denied their inalienable rights by people who did not adhere to the 14th Amendment. Just as with the issue of slavery, the incorrect attitude changed over time, accompanied by legislation reflective of the evolving attitude.

They were citizens, but they were denied their rights. They aren't the first persons to whom that has happened.


That law came into existence to correct the Supreme Court's very poor decision. The Supreme Court must apply the law; Congress gave SOCTUS a new law to correct that and all subsequent decisions.
Click to expand...
Derp, derp...

Translation: You are right, Damocles. But they passed that law because... <insert extra leftist blather here, leftists would rather think some folks got it wrong than realize that the Constitution gave a path for Congress to give folks citizenship if a law is passed and signed>.

You should have stopped before your blather. Until that law passed they were not citizens.
 
IBDaMann said:
Denial. You should have written nothing instead of your "nuh-uhh" post. Learn about inalienable rights and of "preceding the Constitution."
Click to expand...
No matter how many times you insist that I am right you are still going to be looking a fool.

The reality: Until that law passed, members of Native Tribes were not citizens. Passing that law was a constitutional path for them to gain such citizenship.
 
Damocles said:
No matter how many times you insist that I am right you are still going to be looking a fool.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who doesn't understand the Constitution.

Damocles said:
The reality: Until that law passed, members of Native Tribes were not citizens.
Click to expand...
The 14th Amendment declares US citizenship to be an inalienable right for all persons born in the US, a right that precedes the Constitution. Here is where you double down on stupid and deny this.

The reality: They were born in the US and thus they were citizens. Your stupid position is that when someone violates and/or deprives someone else of his rights, that the victim must never have had those rights in the first place. That is a very stupid position for you to have, much less one in which to take great pride. They were citizens who were deprived of their rights, not non-citizens who were afforded all of their rights.

I take it that there is no possible way to explain this to you, so it appears that the problem is on your end.

Damocles said:
Passing that law was a constitutional path for them to gain such citizenship.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can alter the Constitution. Passing that law was a legislative path to correct bogus judicial decisions, both past and future.
 
IBDaMann said:
Says the guy who doesn't understand the Constitution.


The 14th Amendment declares US citizenship to be an inalienable right for all persons born in the US, a right that precedes the Constitution. Here is where you double down on stupid and deny this.

The reality: They were born in the US and thus they were citizens. Your stupid position is that when someone violates and/or deprives someone else of his rights, that the victim must never have had those rights in the first place. That is a very stupid position for you to have, much less one in which to take great pride. They were citizens who were deprived of their rights, not non-citizens who were afforded all of their rights.

I take it that there is no possible way to explain this to you, so it appears that the problem is on your end.


Incorrect. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can alter the Constitution. Passing that law was a legislative path to correct bogus judicial decisions, both past and future.
Click to expand...
Gods you are stupid.

Congress has the authority in the constitution to establish rules on naturalization.

Saying a wrong thing like "they had citizenship" doesn't make anything right. They did not, hence a law was necessary and in 1927 one was passed and signed into law, Congress had this ability because the constitution said they did.

Pretending that things do not mean things, or that rulings are "wrong" because you say so will never change actual reality.
 
Damocles said:
Gods you are stupid.
Click to expand...
You're too stupid to follow a conversation.

Damocles said:
Congress has the authority in the constitution to establish rules on naturalization.
Click to expand...
Great pivot. I have already addressed this several times.

Damocles said:
Saying a wrong thing like "they had citizenship"
Click to expand...
Learn to read. I wrote that they were citizens. I did not claim that they had benefits of the inalienable rights of which they had been deprived.

Damocles said:
They did not, hence a law was necessary
Click to expand...
Nope. What was necessary was for them to not be deprived of their inalienable rights. There were many ways to go about this. The legislative path was chosen to obligate the Judiciary to apply that law and to never again make such bogus decisions.

Damocles said:
or that rulings are "wrong" because you say so will never change actual reality.
Click to expand...
Note: Courts make decisions, not rulings. American courts decide cases, they do not rule as the courts of kings that issue fiat rulings. American courts are not legislative bodies that make the rules.
 
Damocles said:
Gods you are stupid.

Congress has the authority in the constitution to establish rules on naturalization.

Saying a wrong thing like "they had citizenship" doesn't make anything right. They did not, hence a law was necessary and in 1927 one was passed and signed into law, Congress had this ability because the constitution said they did.

Pretending that things do not mean things, or that rulings are "wrong" because you say so will never change actual reality.
Click to expand...
Indeed
 
Damocles said:
No matter how many times you insist that I am right you are still going to be looking a fool.

The reality: Until that law passed, members of Native Tribes were not citizens. Passing that law was a constitutional path for them to gain such citizenship.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS recognized that fact in Elk v Wilkins. IBDaMann thinks he knows more than the SCOTUS
 
IBDaMann said:
You're too stupid to follow a conversation.


Great pivot. I have already addressed this several times.


Learn to read. I wrote that they were citizens. I did not claim that they had benefits of the inalienable rights of which they had been deprived.


Nope. What was necessary was for them to not be deprived of their inalienable rights. There were many ways to go about this. The legislative path was chosen to obligate the Judiciary to apply that law and to never again make such bogus decisions.


Note: Courts make decisions, not rulings. American courts decide cases, they do not rule as the courts of kings that issue fiat rulings. American courts are not legislative bodies that make the rules.
Click to expand...
You really don't know what you are talking about.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages

rul·ing
/ˈro͞oliNG/

noun

  1. an authoritative decision or pronouncement, especially one made by a judge.
    "the ruling was reversed in the appeal court"
 
FastLane said:
You really don't know what you are talking about.

  1. an authoritative decision or pronouncement, especially one made by a judge.
    "the ruling was reversed in the appeal court"
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad. You're right, the judiciary is a legislative body that rules by fiat, and makes rules through "rulings". It all makes so much sense now that you have revealed that the internet says so.
 
FastLane said:
The SCOTUS recognized that fact in Elk v Wilkins. IBDaMann thinks he knows more than the SCOTUS
Click to expand...
What I see is that you are convinced that I am correct, which is why you are too embarrassed to make your prediction about the case before the Supreme Court.
 
Damocles said:
Gods you are stupid.

Congress has the authority in the constitution to establish rules on naturalization.

Saying a wrong thing like "they had citizenship" doesn't make anything right. They did not, hence a law was necessary and in 1927 one was passed and signed into law, Congress had this ability because the constitution said they did.

Pretending that things do not mean things, or that rulings are "wrong" because you say so will never change actual reality.
Click to expand...
How ridiculous that a law had to be passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top