|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Supreme Court this week /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1751042277 Message started by WebsterMark on 06/27/25 at 09:37:57 |
|
Title: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/27/25 at 09:37:57 Lots of Trump winning this week. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by thumperclone on 06/28/25 at 05:33:44 not the win you think just changes the process, many class action suits already filed |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/28/25 at 06:13:23 No, it was a crushing defeat. The Democrats/liberals on the Supreme court have turned into all out leftist. They’re your people now. If they weren’t justices, they’d be out there, scratching Teslas and locking police officers in their precinct and setting the building on fire. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by MnSpring on 06/28/25 at 07:51:35 Used to be, If someone was a female SLAVE, and living in the USA, and had a child, that child was property, of the SLAVE owner. When SLAVES, were not considered Property any more, a child born, by a person once considered a SLAVE, in the USA, was considered a USA resident. That was the Law. It does NOT, say a ILLEGAL female, who ILLEGALLY comes into this Nation, who is NOT a Citizen, who has a baby, that baby is suddenly a Citizen. It does NOT say a female with a Visa, who has a baby here, that baby is suddenly a Citizen. The LAW did not change, only thing that changed was the UL WOKE DFI FDS wanna be SOCIALISTS Became Full Blown, Communist Socialists. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/28/25 at 10:04:19 It does NOT, say a ILLEGAL female, who ILLEGALLY comes into this Nation, who is NOT a Citizen, who has a baby, that baby is suddenly a Citizen. It does NOT say a female with a Visa, who has a baby here, that baby is suddenly a Citizen. It does not say that, but that is how it is applied. Like how a speed limit does not have to say: One can not go 31 in a 30mph zone. One can not go 32 in a 30 mph zone. One can not go 33 in a 30 mph zone. One can not go 34 in a 30 mph zone. The 14th as interpreted by the SCOTUS indicates humans on ships in port or offspring of diplomatic humans under diplomatic immunity are not US citizens. The problem is the use of "jus soli" in US law. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean procedurally or in application it was done incorrectly. What is going on now is exactly what the 14th needs. It needs to be re-interpreted, or Amended, for use in modern time. Griping that every court in the US, every lawyer, judge, LEO, have been wrong is a futile argument. Times change, this is literally why we have the system we do. Not to gripe and moan and say people are reading it wrong - but to implement necessary change. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/25 at 03:45:07 It was written for the recently freed slaves, that’s all. The fact that it’s pacifically corrupt Indians out of the equation because The legislators of the time did not consider them to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So yes, there needs to be a definitive ruling on this. Someone who illegally sneaks across the border and has a baby the next day, is that baby US citizen? You would have to be an idiot to believe that. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/29/25 at 06:47:00 The fact that it’s pacifically corrupt Indians out of the equation because The legislators of the time did not consider them to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Except they were. The "Sovereign" component to Indian tribes still included multiple Federal State Enabling Act's. No tribe and land is exclusively "Sovereign" and exempt from all US law. Again, this whole "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." is the wrong argument. Jurisdiction and who it applies to has been clearly defined. People don't like it, so they say it's wrong, or they hope people fall for the alternative definitions nonsense. Which works, look how many people use it. It also doesn't work because not one legal challenge using "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." has ever won in court. Not one. The 14th needs modern interpretation. Not altered interpretations and definitions of past application. Someone who illegally sneaks across the border and has a baby the next day, is that baby US citizen? You would have to be an idiot to believe that. Yes. According to multiple rulings in US courts, the answer is yes. If they are on "US Soil" and not the child of a Diplomat or from a ship on port - yes. You have to be an idiot to think every single US citizenship process in the nation has been illegal for decades and decades with not one challenge and victory. Not a single one out of millions was challenged and won. The fact we had to have an Executive Order proves that birthright citizenship has been legal this entire time. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by MnSpring on 06/29/25 at 08:13:16 “…illegally sneaks across the border and has a baby the next day, is that baby US citizen? …” “… Yes. According to multiple rulings in US courts, the answer is yes. …” The 14 doesn’t need to be ripped apart, then re-written, like some want the 2nd to be done. Things ‘added’ to the 2nd, have been going on for a very long time, and they are enforceable, (well, unless you are the son of a POTUS, and send the Secret Service to STEAL the proof). Add a simple piece to the 14th, by the same mechanism as so many were added to the 2nd. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/29/25 at 08:56:35 The 14 doesn’t need to be ripped apart, then re-written, like some want the 2nd to be done. I don't know who they are but my recommendation is the removal of two words, since that those words have resulted in many gun control measures being passed. How many losses does it take to know you are losing? Add a simple piece to the 14th, by the same mechanism as so many were added to the 2nd. Agreed. Stop arguing the "jurisdiction" stance since it has literally never worked once, not once ever, and use techniques that do work. Let's review: Use methods that do work. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by MnSpring on 06/29/25 at 09:24:26 "... since that those words have resulted in many gun control measures being passed. ..." The 2, 'words', did NOT result in, CONTROL of Guns. It was the LACK of education. They were spawned by the UL, FDS, WOKE, DFI, Socialists, who simply were not able to understand what the meaning was. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/29/25 at 09:53:57 The 2, 'words', did NOT result in, CONTROL of Guns. It was the LACK of education. Those words were the defining factor. How many will it take to understand that re-educating millions of people is more work than eliminating the two words they use to win? We have control over the word used in Amendments, we do not have anywhere near the same level of control over education and also how humans perceive it. They were spawned by the UL, FDS, WOKE, DFI, Socialists, who simply were not able to understand what the meaning was. Yep, and they still keep winning. Take away the weapon, or keep complaining people don't interpret it correctly? I prefer to take away the single most used parameter to win gun control measures over complaining that people aren't educated right. I prefer effective strategy over gripes, whining and expecting my words to control other humans. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by thumperclone on 06/29/25 at 10:07:54 2C0F321113080F06610 wrote:
was the maga madman that killed Melisa Hortman educated? |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/25 at 15:48:48 634341495443260 wrote:
At the time, Indians were specifically excluded because they were not subject to the jurisdiction. I’m aware of court ruling a number of years later changed the policy but when originally created, the logical interpretation would be no, a person who illegally crossed the border and gave birth the next day, the baby would not be a citizen. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/29/25 at 19:50:10 At the time, Indians were specifically excluded because they were not subject to the jurisdiction. I’m aware of court ruling a number of years later changed the policy but when originally created, the logical interpretation would be no, a person who illegally crossed the border and gave birth the next day, the baby would not be a citizen. This is understandable, however the effective, as in the positions accepted by and ruled favorably by the SCOTUS were the ones that argued for current change - not the ones that said every application prior is wrong. Instead of saying "but originally this is how it was" and expecting a different result than the thousands and thousands of results that have happened, the argument should be "today we need this". The jurisdiction argument has failed every time, why keep using it? |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/25 at 05:17:37 Just because the jurisdiction argument has failed, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s right, but the political willpower hasn’t been there before. Maybe it is now. The case around 1900 that establish this birthright principle was just simply decided wrong. As evidence, when someone is deported, they are sent back to their home country who generally accept them. If that’s not evidence that they’re subject to the jurisdiction of another nation, I don’t know what it is. Regardless, the practice of anchor babies is a real thing. And because of that, the policy needs to change. The 14th amendment did not enshrine birthright citizenship anymore than abortion rights are enshrined specifically in the constitution. These “rights” were extrapolated from constitutional text based on legal opinions at a point in time. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/30/25 at 05:28:11 Just because the jurisdiction argument has failed, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Agreed. It just doesn't not work. It's an argument with zero successful outcomes. It’s right, but the political willpower hasn’t been there before. Maybe it is now. The case around 1900 that establish this birthright principle was just simply decided wrong. I think it was decided correctly for its time. Today however it is abused and is unsustainable. As evidence, when someone is deported, they are sent back to their home country who generally accept them. If that’s not evidence that they’re subject to the jurisdiction of another nation, I don’t know what it is. Except they are also under US jurisdiction while on US soil. Or can tourists just do whatever they want and ignore US laws? The problem with continuing to use that argument is it doesn't work. It's never worked, simply because jus soli and jurisdiction in US law is very specifically interpreted, combined with precedence, it's been a losing argument, every single time. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/25 at 06:11:25 There’s a difference between following the law and being under a nation’s jurisdiction isn’t there? |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/30/25 at 09:11:44 There’s a difference between following the law and being under a nation’s jurisdiction isn’t there? Yes. When a human is on US soil they have to follow the laws, they are also under the jurisdiction of the US legal system unless they are from a ship in port, or a Diplomat with active diplomatic immunity. So for illegal immigrants, when they arrive in US territory they are under US jurisdiction as in a specific court or legal authority has the power and right to make decisions and exercise control over any particular situation, person, or territory. Illegal immigrants can be arrested, tried, and incarcerated for crimes here because they are under our jurisdiction. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/25 at 09:37:25 Under the jurisdiction thereof, has to (should) mean more than just being legally obligated to following local laws. Otherwise, what was the point of excluding Indians? They excluded them because they were under the jurisdiction of their local tribes. An illegal immigrant, who sneaks into the country, has a baby and then claims citizenship for that child, just doesn’t seem to fit with the bigger concept of under the jurisdiction thereof. The Chinese case in the early 1900s that was the foundation for birthright citizenship, seems to, in my opinion, was decided with poor logic. The parents had been in the country for years. Perhaps it’s a case where a certain amount of time qualifies you as being under the jurisdiction of the United States. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Serowbot on 06/30/25 at 11:16:53 When Republicans say they want us to have more babies... They mean white babies It's just hard to say that out loud |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by Eegore on 06/30/25 at 12:21:08 Under the jurisdiction thereof, has to (should) mean more than just being legally obligated to following local laws. Otherwise, what was the point of excluding Indians? They excluded them because they were under the jurisdiction of their local tribes. They excluded them because they didn't want them to be US citizens. The SCOTUS stated in 1831 for Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1, tribal governments are not US "States" Constitutionally, and they are not "Foreign States," in regard to Article III original jurisdiction. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/cherokee-nation-v-georgia Jurisdiction applies to Tribal Lands. I imagine if an illegal immigrant was on Tribal Lands they would be under the jurisdiction of that tribe. At that point the The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would have to be taken into consideration. Yet another example of how this jurisdiction argument, in court, goes nowhere. Native Americans are specifically recognized as being under the jurisdiction of their Tribal Court/Laws if you will, and also every single one born is a US Citizen, simply for being born on US soil. Jus Soli again. An illegal immigrant, who sneaks into the country, has a baby and then claims citizenship for that child, just doesn’t seem to fit with the bigger concept of under the jurisdiction thereof. Except every single court ruling has said they are. Not one case exists that says otherwise. The Chinese case in the early 1900s that was the foundation for birthright citizenship, seems to, in my opinion, was decided with poor logic. The parents had been in the country for years. Perhaps it’s a case where a certain amount of time qualifies you as being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This would be an argument that uses a logic other than the consistently defeated, as in always, every time, argument of jurisdiction. Time-based evaluation would be an updated, and in my opinion, needed change. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/25 at 18:04:38 5B4D5A475F4A475C280 wrote:
You’re wrong. I want America babies. Babies whose parents understand America. We don’t need any more pu$$ified emasculated liberal males and we don’t need anymore Democratic Karens. |
|
Title: Re: Supreme Court this week Post by thumperclone on 06/30/25 at 18:08:12 7F4D4A5B5C4D5A65495A43280 wrote:
You’re wrong. I want America babies. Babies whose parents understand America. We don’t need any more pu$$ified emasculated liberal males and we don’t need anymore Democratic Karens. [/quote] don't need any more MAGA nutjobs or felonious presidents that married an imported wife |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |