Trump May Get His Wall After All

Mar 2018
1,225
213
Grayson
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.
I'm winning because children are being granted citizenship just as I have explained the law to you and Trump hasn't done one of those fancy Executive Orders to stop it.
 
Mar 2018
1,225
213
Grayson
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.
You must spend your whole life in front of that mirror. EVERYBODY on this board would probably think that applies to you - even Trump himself would find you loony.
 
Jul 2014
14,929
9,155
massachusetts
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.
Except that is your opinion, it's not the opinion of any court in the United States....
If I travel to another country, I am subject to the jurisdiction of that country, UNLESS I am an accredited diplomat, in which case I would have diplomatic immunity.
Without diplomatic immunity, I would still owe allegiance to the US, but if I violated a law of the country I was in, I would be subject to the jurisdiction of their courts .
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
27,509
15,111
Memphis, Tn.
If you take the time to read SC ruling over the decades, you will soon learn that the original intent of the Constitutional authors was to make the SC the least powerful. They did that for a reason. That reason (activist courts) has come to fruition. The Constitution was intended to be a restriction of the Fed. government but, with the Courts help, those restrictions have fallen by the wayside. The SC does NOT have Legislative power yet, they have ho problem creating law that does not exist in Congress. Interpretation of the law was to be their only power.

LOL...you better read the Constitution over again...
Article III, Section 1 The Judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in ONE Supreme Court, and in such INFERIOR courts as the Congress MAY from time to time ordain and establish.

What's not perfectly clear?

An"activist court" is simply a court that makes a ruling you don't like. Period.