That's how it's worked for a long time. That's what the first part of the 14th Amendment is about. And NO, the SC can't change that. Since it's an AMENDMENT, it's now part of the Constitution, just like the 2nd. All the SC can do is look at a subsequent law and decide if it follows the 14th or not. The SC CANNOT "decide" an Amendment is not Constitutional, since it IS the criteria they are compelled to use to evaluate other laws. (ANOTHER instance of a law that cannot be subjected to the whims of the Kangaroo Supreme Court, despite Eyore's LIES.)

Supreme Court (Rigged) Of The United States = SCROTUS

Hey, just a fairness heads-up, I've reported you to the pseudo Bar Association. You should at least apply the same criteria for "libruls" as you do for MAGATs, and you NEVER biatch about MAGATs' lies...


That isn't a "reference", BTW; it's the actual Constitutional Amendment. Even a pseudo lawyer should know that.

If you restricted yourself to only criticizing LIES, I'd be ok with it. But, NO, you harp on what YOU think are lies I've told historically, instead of calling out MAGATs who are lying NOW. Look through your own posts. Ever since I admitted to having lied in the past, like any HONEST person does, you bring that up at least every 3rd or 4th post in a personal attack. So, my avatar lives in your head, and I'm thinking it trashes the place like Led Zeppelin trashed hotel rooms.

Ranchers are always corporations. So are farmers. Unless you're talking about subsistence ranchers/farmers--- then they're called "homesteaders". Igrew up on a sharecropped cotton farm, owned by the bank--- even that was really a corporation. Are you talking from a pseudo lawyer POV, or are you speaking about reality?

9 acres is not a ranch, unless he's maybe raising goats. And, if he only has 9 acres, why is there a holding pond? 9 acres would not be enough cattle for that. We had some 20 acres of pasture for the milk/meat cows, and we never had more than 10. We had no holding pond at all. That few number of cows doesn't justify it. Again, if the farm is a viable business, it has to have a business license, or it can't sell anything. Only a moron would even try. So, you're saying the "rancher" is a moron? Hey, maybe it's just a pseudo ranch for laundering money!

9 acres is not a ranch, unless he's maybe raising goats. And, if he only has 9 acres, why is there a holding pond?

 That was the original argument.  His "stock pond" didn't actually meet any conditions the EPA initially fined him for.

 
Again, if the farm is a viable business, it has to have a business license, or it can't sell anything.

 He had a business license, an LLC is not a "Corporation".  My cousin has an LLC to sell custom earrings, she is not a "Corporation".  

https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an+LLC+a+Corporation%3F&sca_esv=ec9d3b8357...


So, you're saying the "rancher" is a moron?

 No.  I am saying you lied about him being a "Corporation".  When it is clear from the multiple court documents he is not in any way.


 The difference here is when thumperclone lied and said he "destroyed wetlands" to make the stock pond - he just never responded to the empirical evidence showing that to be false and let it go.  

 You on the other hand just keep making up random sh!t to defend the random sh!t you manufactured in your head.  Like now "Ranchers" are "always corporations" which is very, very easily proven to be false.  One doesn't even need to be a lawyer to figure that out.  You complain I engage in "personal attacks" maybe consider how many times you double down on the nonsense you state out of reaction with none of the evidence you demand of others.

 Nobody cares about any of this - it's just how you react to things.

Eegore wrote on 12/08/25 at 12:40:35:





Which does NOT mean I'm wrong now, does it?