All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

[Matthew]

It's plain English.

[Fluffypants]

4 minutes ago, Matthew said:

It's plain English.

The second amendment is plain english to but you all constantly try to regulate it

[Dougie93]

31 minutes ago, Matthew said:

It's plain English.

wherein "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" opens the way for interpretation

the SCOTUS could interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "

to exclude children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the U.S.,

as their parents may owe allegiance to another country.

and/or Congress could pass a law restricting birthright citizenship for those specific groups

but ultimately, the President could simply invoke Article II war powers ; declare a national emergency

by those means overriding both Congress & the Courts,

by declaring those groups to be "enemy aliens",  see ; internment of the Japanese Americans

Separation of Powers FTW

Edited January 25 by Dougie93

[Matthew]

17 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The second amendment is plain english

What are arms? Can i own a nuke? Is bearing arms meant to be done in context of a "well regulated militia?" None of these are clear from the 2nd amendment.

[Matthew]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the SCOTUS could interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "

to exclude children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the U.S.,

Well sure, nothing stops then from changing the meaning of any words of the consitution to mean something else. But there is nothing open to interpretation about the jurisdiction clause. If you're in a place where US laws have authority then the clause applies.

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, Matthew said:

What are arms? Can i own a nuke? Is bearing arms meant to be done in context of a "well regulated militia?" None of these are clear from the 2nd amendment.

great, so you acknowledge that the 14th Amendment is not unassailable simply by the written text

thanks for defeating your own argument therein

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well sure, nothing stops then from changing the meaning of any words of the consitution to mean something else.

exactly what the Democrats constantly do with the 1A & 2A

turn around is fair play

the difference in this case, is a 6-3 conservative majority at the SCOTUS

with a President willing to invoke his Executive Powers to maximum effect

Edited January 25 by Dougie93

[ironstone]

 

[Matthew]

39 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

great, so you acknowledge that the 14th Amendment is not unassailable simply by the written text

Thanks for agreeing that nothing in the consitution remotely allows trumps policy position and that the only way to do your immigration policy is via juducial activism beyond the meaning of the text and that liberals on the court have been just fine in doing that for the last 80 years. 👍

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Thanks for agreeing that nothing in the consitution remotely allows trumps policy position and that the only way to do your immigration policy is via juducial activism beyond the meaning of the text and that liberals on the court have been just fine in doing that for the last 80 years. 👍

the extra judicial Declaration of Independence & Emancipation Proclamation FTW

Onward Christian Soldiers

[Black Dog]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

 

Except people born in the U.S.A are subject to the United States' jurisdiction. Dang old no eyebrows there didn't think of that, did she?

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Thanks for agreeing that nothing in the consitution remotely allows trumps policy position and that the only way to do your immigration policy is via juducial activism beyond the meaning of the text and that liberals on the court have been just fine in doing that for the last 80 years. 👍

Sure the written text is clear and unambiguous but have you also considered that the last 125 years of judicial precedent also supports birthright citizenship? Checkmate lib.

[ironstone]

And of course, countries with the policy of birthright citizenship must also be obligated to now bring in both parents right?

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, ironstone said:

And of course, countries with the policy of birthright citizenship must also be obligated to now bring in both parents right?

Why? Birthright citizenship only applies to people born in a place. Hence the "birth" part.

Edited January 25 by Black Dog

[herbie]

The 14th Amendment applies only to people the Mango Mussolini says it apples to.
And Mr Hypocrite doesn't care about anything but the 2nd.

[NAME REMOVED]

5 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Except people born in the U.S.A are subject to the United States' jurisdiction. Dang old no eyebrows there didn't think of that, did she?

Sure the written text is clear and unambiguous but have you also considered that the last 125 years of judicial precedent also supports birthright citizenship? Checkmate lib.

I love these MAGA hyenas pull up TikTok videos, yet for the life of them, cannot do a simple Google search for official US Government policy, It tells you everything you need to know in regards to the critical thinking skills, of who one debates with.

Edited January 26 by DUI_Offender

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

It tells you everything you need to know in regards to the critical thinking skills

Bless their hearts. I love the poorly educated.

[Deluge]

6 hours ago, Matthew said:

It's plain English.

That amendment was written for the former slaves. 

But thanks to border erasing a$$holes like you, we have to make sure it agrees with our immigration laws. 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

I love these MAGA hyenas pull up TikTok videos, yet for the left of them, cannot do a simple Google search for official US Government policy, It tells you everything you need to know in regards to the critical thinking skills, of who one debates with.

You don't have any critical thinking skills. 

You DO have the woke virus, and that makes you look like a complete ldiot. 

[Black Dog]

8 minutes ago, Deluge said:

That amendment was written for the former slaves. 

And it applies to children of immigrants, documented or undocumented. Cope and seethe.

Quote

But thanks to border erasing a$$holes like you, we have to make sure it agrees with our immigration laws. 

Lol the Constitution is the supreme law of the land you mongrel so you've got that backasswards.

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That amendment was written for the former slaves. 

Your point? The law is what it is.

[Fluffypants]

22 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Your point? The law is what it is.

First of all, not a law. Second, have you ever heard of the Federalist papers?

The intent behind the amendment is just as important as the amendment itself. Judges uses the intent of said amendment to determine what it was supposed to be for. Activists judges look at an amendment and completely ignores what the intent of the amendment was.

You know the ole stand by of "yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't considered protected speech" is because the judges looked at it and said it was never the intent of the amendment to cover stuff like that even though the Constitution doesn't mention exceptions.

[gatomontes99]

I'll be the first to admit the EO is not a slam dunk. The "subjection to the jursidiction" clause has been interpreted in the past. Unimportant, diplomats in America are considered to no be "subjection to the jursidiction". In addition, enemy combatants/invaders are considered to be "subjection to the jursidiction".

Where the EO tries to wedge itself in is by declaring illegal immigrants invaders. If the SCOTUS agrees, the EO will stand. If not, it will fail.

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

And it applies to children of immigrants, documented or undocumented. Cope and seethe.

Lol the Constitution is the supreme law of the land you mongrel so you've got that backasswards.

LOL! You're the one who will be seething after we burn your misinterpretation to the ground. The question is, will you communists cope? 

[Deluge]

48 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Your point? The law is what it is.

And it's a twisted law that will be rectified. Your border erasing days are over.  

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Except people born in the U.S.A are subject to the United States' jurisdiction. Dang old no eyebrows there didn't think of that, did she?

Sure the written text is clear and unambiguous but have you also considered that the last 125 years of judicial precedent also supports birthright citizenship? Checkmate lib.

It's referring to former slaves, not illegal aliens.

Now, if you scumbags ever decide to embrace your political heritage and purchase more slaves, then we'll be happy to take the 14th out and smack the shit out of you with it. 

In the meantime, Trump's executive order will stand until we decide how best to officially correct that stupid assed interpretation. 

Godspeed to I.C.E.

 

 

Edited January 26 by Deluge

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

The 14th Amendment applies only to people the Mango Mussolini says it apples to.
And Mr Hypocrite doesn't care about anything but the 2nd.

herpes just wants America wiped out. 

That won't happen, of course, but the piece of shit can keep dreaming, right?