No, they've never opened a history book.Don't they realize there's a complete copy of the Constitution in every high school U.S. history textbook?!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, they've never opened a history book.Don't they realize there's a complete copy of the Constitution in every high school U.S. history textbook?!
Everyone on U.S. soil is, except for diplomats and their families.The phrase that will be subject to debate is; "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Considering the make up of the current court there is no better time to have this debate.
Probably all leftists from blue states and ignorant of the political and legal history of the 14th Amendment and its jurisprudence.18 state attorneys generals have signed on to this lawsuit on behalf of the 14th Amendment.
The Trump White House has responded in a petty manner befitting the current White House thin-skinned occupant;
They have removed the searchable text version of the United States Constitution from WhiteHouse.gov.
Governor Ron DeSantis is working tirelessly to remedy this oversite in Florida public schools, as is Oklahoma school superintendent Ryan Walters (Ryan wants to be the first president of the Christian States of America).Don't they realize there's a complete copy of the Constitution in every high school U.S. history textbook?!
How many challenges to the 14th amendment have been brought?Probably all leftists from blue states and ignorant of the political and legal history of the 14th Amendment and its jurisprudence.
The SCOTUS will uphold that. Even in its present formation. Jus soli citizenship is the law of he land and will not be abolished in your lifetime.But not birthright citizenship as it is understood by you.
That history solidly supports birthright citizenship.Probably all leftists from blue states and ignorant of the political and legal history of the 14th Amendment and its jurisprudence.
SCOTUS won't even hear the case. It'll never pass at the Appellate court, and SCOTUS will refuse to take it up.How many challenges to the 14th amendment have been brought?
If it's as simple as you suggest, why haven't there been more?
SCOTUS will decide
You won't be happy
Like I said there hasn't been a SCOTUS decision on birthright citizenship other than United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and it did not address the birthright citizenship of illegal aliens. It was a case involving the child of legal foreign residents who were not citizens. Wong's parents were not illegal aliens in the sense we understand today. They were Chinese immigrants living legally in the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act, but were not citizens.How many challenges to the 14th amendment have been brought?
If it's as simple as you suggest, why haven't there been more?
SCOTUS will decide
You won't be happy
I never said otherwise, dipshit. They are adjacent rulings that likely will be considered.Like I said there hasn't been a SCOTUS decision on birthright citizenship other than United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and it did not address the birthright citizenship of illegal aliens. It was a case involving the child of legal foreign residents who were not citizens. Wong's parents were not illegal aliens in the sense we understand today. They were Chinese immigrants living legally in the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act, but were not citizens.
The children of undocumented immigrants, if born in he U.S., are subject to to U.S. jurisdiction and are therefore citizens.Like I said there hasn't been a SCOTUS decision on birthright citizenship other than United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and it did not address the birthright citizenship of illegal aliens. It was a case involving the child of legal foreign residents who were not citizens. Wong's parents were not illegal aliens in the sense we understand today. They were Chinese immigrants living legally in the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act, but were not citizens.
Please explain what part of the amendment suggests any aspect of this.Under whose jurisdiction (control) is the minor child? Does the child belong to the State or the parents?
I'm not responsible for your inability to read and understand the English language.Please explain what part of the amendment suggests any aspect of this.
I know the English language, as well as the amendmen, which does not support your question.I'm not responsible for your inability to read and understand the English language.
Yes....Eastman came up with an interpretation. So have othersObviously you don't or you'd realize there is more than one interpretation of the relevant clause.
No, Eastman came up with a perspective which fed him what he wanted.Further you seem to under the impression that one day Trump was sitting around reading the Constitution and capriciously decided to eliminate birthright citizenship. I can assure you that that is not what happened and that some of the finest legal minds in this nation are behind that EO.
I've never been disillusioned to think otherwise. But SCOTUS isn't going to agree with Eastman.I can further assure you that no podunk Federal judge is going to be issuing a nationwide injunction. This is all carefully planned to force it to the SCOTUS.
I never said otherwise, dipshit. They are adjacent rulings that likely will be considered.
The reason why there hasnt been challenges is because the amendment is clearly spelled out.
So then why didn't the American Indian gain citizenship until 1924?The children of undocumented immigrants, if born in he U.S., are subject to to U.S. jurisdiction and are therefore citizens.
Native Americans have been treated differently since we became a country. Why do you relate native Americans to this Amendment? No court has done so.So then why didn't the American Indian gain citizenship until 1924?
Then why did it take an act of Congress in 1924 to give citizenship to the American Indian who were all born here? I know why but you don't.The children of undocumented immigrants, if born in he U.S., are subject to to U.S. jurisdiction and are therefore citizens.
The child belongs to the state as much as any adult does.Under whose jurisdiction (control) is the minor child? Does the child belong to the State or the parents?
Because there's always been a sense, kindasorta, that Indian nations are not quite under U.S. jurisdiction even when completely under U.S. power. See the language of the Constitution excluding "Indians not taxed" from the population counts under the 3/5 Compromise.Then why did it take an act of Congress in 1924 to give citizenship to the American Indian who were all born here? I know why but you don't.
You can't possibly be gloating over that, you worthless animal!Trump cancels President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, which mandated government contractors take affirmative action. Its about time. Back to meritocracy.