Trump May Get His Wall After All

Dec 2012
20,127
8,428
California
Wong Kim Ark is a case study in the abuses of Activist Judges. That decision has colored the basic question of citizenship ever since. In the cases of, Elk v. Wilkins, and the persuasive dicta from the Slaughterhouse case, upheld the existing interpretation of existing law prior to Wong Kim Ark. Congress must reassert its plenary authority and make clear, by resolution, of the correct meaning of "subject to jurisdiction" phrase of the Citizenship Clause .
 
Dec 2014
27,509
15,115
Memphis, Tn.
Just because you have been made to look as juvenile as you are is no reason to attack me. It is not my interpretation of the Constitution, it is the interpretation of the authors who stated the original intent. If you can't, or won't except the actual and definitive wording of the citizenship clause, that's on you. It's there for any reasonable person to read and understand.
No such thing happened anywhere outside of your imagination.
Attack you? You mean to say that your interpretation of the Constitution IS important and relevant, more so than that of the SCOTUS?
You call that an attack?
You're kinda' sensitive, aren't you?
 
Mar 2018
1,225
213
Grayson
Trying to convince intellectually-deficient people like you is an exercise in futility. You have proven nothing, other than your dismal understanding of the law as written. You have not posted one argument that supports your argument. On the other hand, I have given you multiple resources that contradict your remarks. I asked for one ruling by the SCOTUS that supports your position. You gave me cases that don't apply. By your hand are you making yourself to be the fool.
It is amazing. It's like you're standing in front of a mirror talking to yourself.

The only clarification for you was that the United States Supreme Court HAS NOT WEIGHED IN ON ALL LEGAL ISSUES. In those instances the rulings by lower courts are the law. The fact that you don't understand that negates you having the intelligence to participate in this discussion. Nobody can show you what don't exist.

In posts 108 and 109 you are telling people to read books, go to the library, etc. and in post # 110 I gave YOU a link to the relevant laws. In post # 139 you have some quote to an unnamed source and I'm still not sure what relevance you think the point quoted had to do with this thread. In post #172 you try to B.S. your way through a post using a legal citation I provided. In post # 172 you try to comment on a cite that I provided.

So, tough guy, I have a challenge for you. As I'm typing this, there are 192 posts on this thread. If you can show me the name of a book, a citation to the legal sources you claim or any resource material save you of rehashing what I provide and claiming to having refuted it in ANY of your posts on this thread, I will fly to anywhere you are in the world and hand you $2000 in cash and I will be happy to leave here on the next plane out. If you cannot tell me in what post number you've done such (a vague reference to a statute with no corroborating evidence is not proof... that was just your opinion as to what the law is.) Show us the proof without editing your posts. Prove your point and not only will I give you the damn money, but will never post on a board again. If you edit any of your posts (or have anyone do it for you) you lose and give me $4000 and quit posting here. Put up or shut up.

You love getting the beat down, so let me guess: You're really a liberal trying to discredit the right? No conservative could be as stupid as you pretend to be.
 
Dec 2012
20,127
8,428
California
It is amazing. It's like you're standing in front of a mirror talking to yourself.

The only clarification for you was that the United States Supreme Court HAS NOT WEIGHED IN ON ALL LEGAL ISSUES. In those instances the rulings by lower courts are the law. The fact that you don't understand that negates you having the intelligence to participate in this discussion. Nobody can show you what don't exist.

In posts 108 and 109 you are telling people to read books, go to the library, etc. and in post # 110 I gave YOU a link to the relevant laws. In post # 139 you have some quote to an unnamed source and I'm still not sure what relevance you think the point quoted had to do with this thread. In post #172 you try to B.S. your way through a post using a legal citation I provided. In post # 172 you try to comment on a cite that I provided.

So, tough guy, I have a challenge for you. As I'm typing this, there are 192 posts on this thread. If you can show me the name of a book, a citation to the legal sources you claim or any resource material save you of rehashing what I provide and claiming to having refuted it in ANY of your posts on this thread, I will fly to anywhere you are in the world and hand you $2000 in cash and I will be happy to leave here on the next plane out. If you cannot tell me in what post number you've done such (a vague reference to a statute with no corroborating evidence is not proof... that was just your opinion as to what the law is.) Show us the proof without editing your posts. Prove your point and not only will I give you the damn money, but will never post on a board again. If you edit any of your posts (or have anyone do it for you) you lose and give me $4000 and quit posting here. Put up or shut up.

You love getting the beat down, so let me guess: You're really a liberal trying to discredit the right? No conservative could be as stupid as you pretend to be.
They are the law until the SP says otherwise. I asked for a SCOTUS ruling giving citizenship to illegal aliens. You gave me Wong Kim Ark, a case that is NOT on point. If you cannot provide such a ruling your argument is moot. Try reading the applicable statute, its original intent, and apply it to your abysmal attempt at running that crap passed me. As a Liberal, I'd be very surprised if you could come with $2., let alone $2000.
 
Dec 2012
20,127
8,428
California
These laws concern themselves with Due Process and Equal Protection. Anyone within this country is afforded those protections. Nowhere in those cases do you find the SCOTUS granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Here's a thought, try reading the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, it's original intent, and then apply that to your boneheaded argument. Truth is, you have no argument to base your faulty rhetoric on. You have not, nor will you ever be able to win an argument on this issue with your defective understanding of the Constitution.
 
Dec 2012
20,127
8,428
California
And who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? People with diplomatic immunity, that's what that means.
If you want it to mean something else, get a new amendment.
That's why everyone else born in the US, is a citizen.
Jurisdiction: Not owing allegiance to any other country. That would apply to diplomats as well as illegal aliens.
Illegal alien: A person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country.
Any child born of illegal aliens automatically owes its allegiance to its parents country.