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

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It's a misinterpretation. Only a woke doormat would embrace that meaning. It probably came from that "give me your huddled masses" communist b*tch. 

You mean Lady Liberty?

It's a wonder Trump hasn't had her statue torn down like it was one of Saddam's, Assad's or Sir John A's.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/25/2025 at 8:25 AM, 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.

And it's a huge problem that Demi-appointed activist judges actually like to use wild interpretations like that to push the Dems' sick agendas.

No reasonable person thinks that militias have nukes. The function of a militia is one of two things:

1. to gather, arm and train civilians to support the military
2. to gather, arm and train civilians to oppose their own gov't's hostility

How does nuking someone in your own local region achieve anything positive? How would a Georgian militia, for example, benefit from nuking Atlanta? 

It seems weird to take your post literally, but you guys supported forcing 18-40 yr olds to take the covid-1938 jab, and giving it to children, so there's no level of stupidity that I can ever write off as exaggeration when it comes from a leftard's mouth. 

[Deluge]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You mean Lady Liberty?

It's a wonder Trump hasn't had her statue torn down like it was one of Saddam's, Assad's or Sir John A's.

Yup, that's her - Lady Poverty; the original woketard that wanted all the world's refuse to come to the US and drain the system. lol

Edited January 26 by Deluge

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Yup, that's her - Lady Poverty; the original woketard that wanted all the world's refuse to come to the US and drain the sytem. lol

So when will an ICE demolition team be dispatched to tear her down?

I bet you could find a US first nations crew willing to do it for free.

Edited January 26 by eyeball

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So when will an ICE demolition team be dispatched to tear her down? 

Oh, we're not democrats, comrade. We don't tear statues down. We keep statues up to help remind us of our past. 

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And it's a huge problem that Demi-appointed activist judges actually like to use wild interpretations like that to push the Dems' sick agendas.

No reasonable person thinks that militias have nukes. The function of a militia is one of two things:

1. to gather, arm and train civilians to support the military
2. to gather, arm and train civilians to oppose their own gov't's hostility

How does nuking someone in your own local region achieve anything positive? How would a Georgian militia, for example, benefit from nuking Atlanta? 

It seems weird to take your post literally, but you guys supported forcing 18-40 yr olds to take the covid-1938 jab, and giving it to children, so there's no level of stupidity that I can ever write off as exaggeration when it comes from a leftard's mouth. 

You're IGNORANT or LYING.

No one here was forced to take the COVID vaccine, except as a condition of acceptance in the armed forces or healthcare workers. You're confused us with your government, which had a much lower death rate. Congrats.

Of course there are a whole host of OTHER vaccines required for those jobs, dummy.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

By your own logic, would Americans be progressively better off if the rate of illegal immigration keeps going up?

And not all of these 'newcomers' want to work.

 

Since 2020, how many of these couples have had a baby, left it with relatives...and then returned to wherever they came from?

The undocumented are a net economic positive, but we'd be better off resolving the immigration pressure with comprehensive immigration reform. 

Unfortunately, Trump felt that having the issue was better for him than finding a solution for Americans and a bipartisan bill went up in smoke. 

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Oh, we're not democrats, comrade. We don't tear statues down. We keep statues up to help remind us of our past. 

Sure, then you've got your presidents who throw out pictures of former presidents when they move into the WH.

[Matthew]

45 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No reasonable person thinks that militias have nukes

Nukes are arms. The Second Amendment says I have a right to bear arms. The Court in 2008 decided this means citizens have a right to firearms.  The relevance here is it's a grey area unlike the language of the citizen clause.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

IF immigrants are not "subject to US jurisdiction," there is no authority to evict them, lDIOT.

That is comfortably the stupidest argument so far.  Well done.   You've out-dumbed yourself. 

In any case the courts have ruled that the children are subject to the jurisdiction regardless of the parent's nationality if they're lawfully here, but there hasn't actually been a ruling about illegals,  and further previous rulings say "they're citizens as no mechanism has removed that or barred it" or words to that effect, and it would not be impossible to pass laws that do exactly that. 

Everything is always open to interpretation. 

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everything is always open to interpretation.

Especially to you 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Especially to you 

Yes.  Especially to intelligent people.  Quite true. 

Only low thinkers and closed minded people can't see beyond the simple. 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes.  Especially to intelligent people.  Quite true. 

Only low thinkers and closed minded people can't see beyond the simple. 

Go tell it to Occam.

They should have called his principle Occam's Binoculars. Or Occam's Radar, to cut thru the fog.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The undocumented are a net economic positive,

In Canada, our GDP has gone up. But when it's measured per capita, it is in fact lower.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

On a simplistic level yes the Court could unilaterally declare that "persons" in the Constitution only means those with green eyes and a Hapsburg jaw.

They really couldn't, and you're kind of missing the point

Quote

Realistically though there is such a thing as a strong and a weak precedent. Firearm precedents have long been and continue to be weak. Citizenship precidents are very strong. The Court has very few enforcement mechanisms, so they rely on a veneer of trust, consistency, and institutional impartiality to the law.

Virtually nothing you just said there was true

 

Quote

Incrementally shifting the interpretation of grey areas in the 2nd Amended took place over decades and culminated in DC v Heller (2008).

Again irrelevant. I completely fails to address the original point I made

 

Quote

However, the 14th Amendment lacks the grey area open to interpretation

It does not.

I will remind you that you and your fellow cohorts all absolutely insisted you knew the law and that without a doubt trump shouldn't be allowed to run for president. And it turned out you were all wrong.

Then It was the left insisting that trump's argument that he's protected against litigation For things he did during his presidency was Bonkers, only to have the courts reaffirm that.

I am sorry, but you are absolutely 100% wrong. There is room for interpretation. That doesn't mean a court is going to reinterpret it, but it absolutely does mean that it is plausible that they could. Sorry for the inconvenience

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

In Canada, our GDP has gone up. But when it's measured per capita, it is in fact lower.

A. In the US GDP per capita is only up.

B. That number, for either country, doesn't have much to do with undocumented people, aside from a small impact on the denominator. Doesn't tell you anything. You'd need a proper impact analysis to tease out the effect of immigrants separate from any macro trends. Would the number be lower if they weren't there? Would it be higher? Etc.

There are industries in the US that wouldn't exist or would be radically different without immigrant labor. When you look at agriculture, hospitality and service sectors, for example,  they run on immigrant labor--regardless of legal status. And I'm not talking about exploitation or abuse (though that does sometimes occur) but rather the simple economics of people willing to do jobs Americans don't want. We have data to back it up. We have run experiments to bear out the data. 

We Americans are better off for it, and like every wave of immigration that has come before, it's people doing hard jobs and busting ass to make a life for their families and a world of opportunity for their children. 

[Matthew]

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They really couldn't

Of course they could.

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It does not.

You're really on a roll here in saying absolutely nothing in this thread. If this is what you've got, just go to bed man.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

A. In the US GDP per capita is only up.

B. That number, for either country, doesn't have much to do with undocumented people, aside from a small impact on the denominator. Doesn't tell you anything. You'd need a proper impact analysis to tease out the effect of immigrants separate from any macro trends. Would the number be lower if they weren't there? Would it be higher? Etc.

There are industries in the US that wouldn't exist or would be radically different without immigrant labor. When you look at agriculture, hospitality and service sectors, for example,  they run on immigrant labor--regardless of legal status. And I'm not talking about exploitation or abuse (though that does sometimes occur) but rather the simple economics of people willing to do jobs Americans don't want. We have data to back it up. We have run experiments to bear out the data. 

We Americans are better off for it, and like every wave of immigration that has come before, it's people doing hard jobs and busting ass to make a life for their families and a world of opportunity for their children. 

In a nutshell, are you saying the more the better?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

So when will an ICE demolition team be dispatched to tear her down?

I bet you could find a US first nations crew willing to do it for free.

They're not. They're just going to have the face redone to look like sarah palin and all's good.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Of course they could.

You're really on a roll here in saying absolutely nothing in this thread. If this is what you've got, just go to bed man.

So you've realized you were wrong and you're just going to pick the start of two sentances and ignore everything else and pretend that's all i said   LOLOLOL

where on EARTH to they get the idea lefties have more mental health issues!  I'ts a mystery   ROFLMAO

well sounds like you've had to admit i'm right so i'll leave it there rather than rub your nose in it too much.  We'll see how badly trump wants to pursue it. If he wants to put in the time there's definitely some ways around it

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, dude, he's a pundit. 

A constitutional scholar is an academic occupation with a primary output being rigorous scholarly publishing. This is roughly like scientific research publishing in peer reviewed journals. It's not for dilettantes. 

And his legal career is thin. I am deeply skeptical that he's argued cases before the SCOTUS. I suspect you made that up. Gonna need a citation there.

He is on the board of directs at Landmark Legal Foundation. He was formerly the President after his time working for Reagan's AG.

A highly respected legal and constitutional scholar and intellectual leader of the conservative movement, Mark brings his extraordinary knowledge and experience as a constitutional lawyer to discuss and analyze current national and international events, and as a student of history, Mark provides keen insight into today’s issues within the context of U.S. and world history

[Hodad]

22 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

He is on the board of directs at Landmark Legal Foundation. He was formerly the President after his time working for Reagan's AG.

A highly respected legal and constitutional scholar and intellectual leader of the conservative movement, Mark brings his extraordinary knowledge and experience as a constitutional lawyer to discuss and analyze current national and international events, and as a student of history, Mark provides keen insight into today’s issues within the context of U.S. and world histor

Well, shit, if he's declared himself a constitutional scholar--in spite of the dearth of scholarly work--then I'll have to stand corrected. 

Did he also declare that he's argued before the Supreme Court, it was that just you? 

And I LOVE that that bio says they fight for originalism in this conversation about a completely novel (and asinine) reading of a plain-language passage about which there was never any confusion. 

They say you can't make this stuff to, but damned if they aren't trying.

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

IF immigrants are not "subject to US jurisdiction," there is no authority to evict them, lDIOT.

Well that's certainly bullshit.

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

You should be really proud of your allegiance to US oligarchs over democracy. 🤮

How much are they paying your to post here?

Lol. Looser.

[Deluge]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

The undocumented are a net economic positive, but we'd be better off resolving the immigration pressure with comprehensive immigration reform. 

Unfortunately, Trump felt that having the issue was better for him than finding a solution for Americans and a bipartisan bill went up in smoke. 

Illegal aliens need to enter the country the right way; that way they wont be illegal aliens; they will be legal immigrants.  

[Deluge]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure, then you've got your presidents who throw out pictures of former presidents when they move into the WH.

What in the f*ck are you crying about? lol