The Disease of Leftism
- Thread starter cml750
- Start date
touchdown
Defense Wins Championships
- Messages
- 6,478
- Reaction score
- 5,552
the Anchor baby Madness ! ! ! !Supreme Court weighs whether to let Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions take effect
The Supreme Court is weighing whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to temporarily take effect in most of the country, even if they might ultimately be found unconstitutional.
apnews.com
touchdown
Defense Wins Championships
- Messages
- 6,478
- Reaction score
- 5,552
I'm gonna speculate that this fire started with an EV . . .
www.news4jax.com
LIVE: Officials say about 50 cars were damaged in hourly garage fire at JAX; airport expected to reopen at 5 p.m.
Officials said 50 cars were damaged after a fire broke out in the hourly garage at the Jacksonville International Airport on Friday afternoon. The airport is expected to reopen at 5 p.m.
www.news4jax.com
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 2,637
He is going to lose this case. Since multiple courts have ruled that the 14th amendment gives anyone born her, with a small exception, the right to citizenship, it will take an act of congress to change it. Plus, the Roberts court doesn't like Trump.
Supreme Court weighs whether to let Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions take effect
The Supreme Court is weighing whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to temporarily take effect in most of the country, even if they might ultimately be found unconstitutional.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 2,637
No one ever questions that the 3 liberal women never break ranks and always vote together. And the still call the court conservative.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 2,637
The interesting thing about this SC ruling is they did not say the president cannot deport the illegal thugs. They made no ruling on that at all. Their only complaint is that the Trump admin is not giving them adequate notice before they deport the illegals. The SC claims 24 hours is not enough. But they did not say what amount of time is enough. The asked the lower court to figure that out.
Doomsday
High Plains Drifter
- Messages
- 22,961
- Reaction score
- 5,875
Actually Congress can't do squat about it. It requires a constitutional amendment.
touchdown
Defense Wins Championships
- Messages
- 6,478
- Reaction score
- 5,552
It just requires the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it's written.
Doomsday
High Plains Drifter
- Messages
- 22,961
- Reaction score
- 5,875
"Proper" is a pretty loose term. The 14th has had generations of prior precedent.
The ONLY way to fix this is another Amendment.
dbair1967
Administrator
- Messages
- 61,556
- Reaction score
- 11,438
Anchor Babies was never part of the thought process when that amendment was created
Doomsday
High Plains Drifter
- Messages
- 22,961
- Reaction score
- 5,875
Exactly why it needs overridden.
It's the same argument as on the 2nd - semiautomatic rifles were never part of the thought process. Doesn't matter - it would require an amendment to exclude those.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 2,637
Congress has to get the ball rolling unless the states call for a constitutional convention. But I do agree that getting 2/3 of congress and 75% of the states to ratify an amendment killing the anchor baby rule is impossible at this time.
Unless the courts change their previous precedents, this rule will stand.
Those who claim the 14th amendment automatically confers citizenship on babies born on US soil don't understand the history of the 14th amendment. For example, Native Americans were not conferred citizenship until I think the 1930s despite having been born here for many years before America existed. At the same time, the law excludes babies born to parent who are here temporarily. Since illegals are at risk of deportation, we can assume they are here temporarily too. That would mean their babies are not US citizens automatically.
IMHO, the anchor baby policy is not a matter of law, but it is more the opinions of a few liberal judges. The Supreme Court can overturn those opinions as they did with Roe v Wade. But they won't. First, there is the problem of all those anchor babies born here since a judge ruled they are citizens. Then there is the anti-Trump faction of the SC which appears to be 5 or 6 of the justices.
I am connected to my states movement to call for a constitutional convention and I can tell you it is very very slow. Blue states oppose it and those that don't want an open convention where all sorts of liberal nonsense can be introduced into the constitution. But the Convention of states wants a balanced budget amendment, term limits for congress, single issue bills in congress, the federal government out of our health care system, as well as a more clearly written 2nd amendment to end the gun grab in the US. I believe every state has a COS movement. It needs numbers to make progress. I believe Texas just joined the group of states calling for a convention by passing a resolution in the Texas legislature. That makes 19 states. We need 38,, which is a tall order.
dbair1967
Administrator
- Messages
- 61,556
- Reaction score
- 11,438
I don't agree it's exactly the "same"
While the Founders didn't know about machine guns and AR's, they probably expected we'd continue to develop newer and better weapons. The idea is people had the right to bear those arms and we all know why.
Nobody expected the anchor baby thing. The thought of massive numbers of people sneaking across the border to deliver a baby was not in anyone's mind. It was a gross misinterpretation by a certain party who saw it as an opportunity to increase their voter base.