Birthright Citizenship Challenge

[HisArpy]

<Snipped for brevity because you're an asshole who cannot read>

Here is a quote from the opinion of the majority:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection.

Foreign born nationals who aren't here legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (to use the words of the 14th Amendment).

You want to argue that they are merely because they have to obey the law, but that's not what was decided. ALLEGIANCE is what's being used as the test for birthright citizenship and foreign nations here illegally have NO allegiance to the US regardless if they can be punished under our justice system.

Basically, you have your head up your ass and think you're clever because you brought a flashlight.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Foreign born nationals who aren't here legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (to use the words of the 14th Amendment).

You want to argue that they are merely because they have to obey the law, but that's not what was decided. ALLEGIANCE is what's being used as the test for birthright citizenship and foreign nations here illegally have NO allegiance to the US regardless if they can be punished under our justice system.

Basically, you have your head up your ass and think you're clever because you brought a flashlight.

You're twisting the concept of the word ALLEGIANCE to justify your position.

You're embarrassing yourself at this point.

 

[Rightguide]

You're twisting the concept of the word ALLEGIANCE to justify your position.

You're embarrassing yourself at this point.

The SCOTUS has taken the case for review. We might know the answer by June.

 

[Politruk]

Foreign born nationals who aren't here legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (to use the words of the 14th Amendment).

You want to argue that they are merely because they have to obey the law, but that's not what was decided. ALLEGIANCE is what's being used as the test for birthright citizenship and foreign nations here illegally have NO allegiance to the US regardless if they can be punished under our justice system.

Of course they have allegiance, to this their native country and no other. An anchor baby who speaks no language but Spanish is still as loyal an American as you.

 

[Rightguide]

Of course they have allegiance, to this their native country and no other. An anchor baby who speaks no language but Spanish is still as loyal an American as you.

You are too dumb to post.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Ancient Forum Saying: Arguing about law with a fake lawyer is as pointless as buying condoms for an incel.

 

[Politruk]

You are too dumb to post.

And that monolingual anchor baby is more loyal an American than you.

 

[Rightguide]

Ancient Forum Saying: Arguing about law with a fake lawyer is as pointless as buying condoms for an incel.

The wisdom of the Ancient Forum, where bad takes age like expired milk. If ignorance were a law degree, you’d be the Supreme Court Chief Justice.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens, yes.

lol, try that in Canada when you bring in a handgun, and see how that works out for ya....

 

[Politruk]

They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens, yes.

No, they're not. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they are physically present.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The SCOTUS has taken the case for review. We might know the answer by June.

It will be interesting to see if they tarnish America's history by 'invalidating' a fecking Constitutional amendment by 'judicial decree'. Yes, we put up with you, the Bobogook and Derpy man-splaining us what teh Constitution "really means", but it will be a sad day in American history if Alito and his wrecking krew stoop to their level of intellectual deceit.

 

[Rightguide]

It will be interesting to see if they tarnish America's history by 'invalidating' a fecking Constitutional amendment by 'judicial decree'. Yes, we put up with you, the Bobogook and Derpy man-splaining us what teh Constitution "really means", but it will be a sad day in American history if Alito and his wrecking krew stoop to their level of intellectual deceit.

Are you still in mourning over the reversal of Dred Scott? Oh, and here, as a further offering of my munificence, I present yet another man-splaining on the Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular:

https://rumble.com/v6r802q-did-you-...s-never-lawfully-ratified.html?e9s=src_v1_upp​

 

[Politruk]

Are you still in mourning over the reversal of Dred Scott? Oh, and here, as a further offering of my munificence, I present yet another man-splaining on the Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular:

https://rumble.com/v6r802q-did-you-...s-never-lawfully-ratified.html?e9s=src_v1_upp​

Lost-Causers have been complaining for a century and more that the Civil War amendments were never lawfully ratified. It means nothing.

 

[Politruk]

Foreign born nationals who aren't here legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (to use the words of the 14th Amendment).

You want to argue that they are merely because they have to obey the law, but that's not what was decided. ALLEGIANCE is what's being used as the test for birthright citizenship and foreign nations here illegally have NO allegiance to the US regardless if they can be punished under our justice system.

Basically, you have your head up your ass and think you're clever because you brought a flashlight.

What case are you referring to?

 

[Rightguide]

Professor of Law John Eastman has submitted an amicus brief on the issue of birthright citizenship, providing scholarly support for each of the legal arguments I’ve made, specifically, that the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, does not confer automatic citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. You can view his powerful brief here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/357776/20250429235907947_CCJ Amicus Brief Final.pdf

 

[Politruk]

Professor of Law John Eastman

Is a worthless crank.

John Charles Eastman (born 1960)[1] is an American lawyer and academic. He is known for his efforts to block certification and overturn the results of the 2020 United States presidential election.

Eastman is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public-interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank.[2][3]


Claremont is the think-tank that published "The Flight 93 Election" in 2016, making out Hillary as some kind of existential threat to the republic. "[A] Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances." Whenever you see "Claremont," you should read it as "crank."

 

[Rightguide]

Is a worthless crank.

John Charles Eastman (born 1960)[1] is an American lawyer and academic. He is known for his efforts to block certification and overturn the results of the 2020 United States presidential election.

Eastman is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public-interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank.[2][3]


Claremont is the think-tank that published "The Flight 93 Election" in 2016, making out Hillary as some kind of existential threat to the republic. "[A] Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances." Whenever you see "Claremont," you should read it as "crank."

You just outlined your ignorance. He is a pillar of constitutional law.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Professor of Law John Eastman has submitted an amicus brief on the issue of birthright citizenship, providing scholarly support for each of the legal arguments I’ve made, specifically, that the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, does not confer automatic citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. You can view his powerful brief here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/357776/20250429235907947_CCJ Amicus Brief Final.pdf

Robert Gouveia has an excellent YouTube walk through.

 

[Politruk]

You just outlined your ignorance. He is a pillar of constitutional law.

No one is, who has anything to do with the Claremont Institute, or sided with Trump in 2020.

 

[jason28053]

You just outlined your ignorance. He is a pillar of constitutional law.

Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Professor of Law John Eastman has submitted an amicus brief on the issue of birthright citizenship, providing scholarly support for each of the legal arguments I’ve made, specifically, that the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, does not confer automatic citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. You can view his powerful brief here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/357776/20250429235907947_CCJ Amicus Brief Final.pdf

Isn't he the idiot who claimed Trump would prevail in Maine's case?

Maine Capitulated to Trump, But Now He Wants an Apology. Is He Going Too Far?​

Robert Spencer|5:00 PM on March 22, 2025

After weeks of defiance of President Trump’s Feb. 5 executive order banning men from participating in women’s sports, the University of Maine System (UMS) gave in on Wednesday: the Department of Agriculture now affirms that Maine’s universities are now in “full compliance” with the executive order. That’s a refreshing blow for sanity, but President Trump made it clear in a Saturday message on Truth Social that he was not satisfied:

While the State of Maine has apologized for their Governor’s strong, but totally incorrect, statement about men playing in women’s sports while at the meeting of governors at the White House, we have not heard from the governor herself, and she is the one that matters in such cases. Therefore, we need a full throated apology from the governor herself, and a statement that she will never make such an unlawful challenge to the federal government again, before this case can be settled. I’m sure she will be able to do that quite easily. Thank you for your attention to this matter and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! DJT

Trump was referring to the fact that Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D-Of Course) defied him openly not long after he issued the executive order, telling him at a governors’ meeting: "We'll see you in court." Trump shot back: “I look forward to it.” The legal battle, however, didn’t come to pass; Maine caved first. So why is Trump continuing to pursue this and demanding an apology from Mills? Isn’t his victory enough?

Actually, Trump makes an important point. It would be good and useful to have “a statement that she will never make such an unlawful challenge to the Federal Government again.” The Democrat political elites are doing their best to portray Trump as a lawless dictator-in-the-making who is busy destroying what they hypocritically and erroneously persist in calling “our democracy.” Yet as is so often the case with such charges, they are indulging in the old tactic of accusing their enemies of what they themselves are guilty of doing.

More here: https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/...-on-gender-madness-but-he-wants-more-n4938189

Just a matter of time.

oh no, that was a different idiot you highlighted....sorry.

 

[MajorRewrite]

As expected …

Trump push to ban birthright citizenship unconstitutional, US court rules

Trump hates that pesky Constitution.

 

[ll74]

As expected …

Trump push to ban birthright citizenship unconstitutional, US court rules

Trump hates that pesky Constitution.

This was always going to be the outcome.

Reichy be damned.

 

[eric_erosfan]

As expected …

Trump push to ban birthright citizenship unconstitutional, US court rules

Trump hates that pesky Constitution.

If they want to overturn birthright citizenship, why are they not trying to amend the Constitution? That really is the only way to change that law.

 

[Hel_Books]

Foreign born nationals who aren't here legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (to use the words of the 14th Amendment).

You want to argue that they are merely because they have to obey the law, but that's not what was decided. ALLEGIANCE is what's being used as the test for birthright citizenship and foreign nations here illegally have NO allegiance to the US regardless if they can be punished under our justice system.

Basically, you have your head up your ass and think you're clever because you brought a flashlight.

The words "subject to the jurisdiction of" are used to exclude people such as diplomats and other very specific cases. For example, if the Japanese had captured Hawaii at the start of World War II and a Japanese soldier had brought his wife over during the occupation their children would not have been citizens of the United States even if they were born in Hawaii. Other than such very narrow exceptions, that's the way it is with jus soli as opposed to jus sanguinis.

Perhaps you should buy a flashlight, to read some history books when you hide under the covers?