There aren't any because the law was settled.
Just pass a new amendment since you think it's so wildly popular.
Judge denies Trumplandia their request to implement the purported birthright citizenship revocation by EO while it is being appealed.
"Repastinating" was a new word to me
"This was not a close case."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...9895.165.0.pdf
Most educated people know why the 14th amendment was put in place after the Civil War. It was to clarify the rights of slave children born in the US from parents who were brought to the US against their will. It had nothing to do with birth tourism although it has been abused that way for ever.
we've always had birthright citizenship in the USA, except for slaves and native Americans.
one of the qualifications for president is to be a "natural born citizen"
anyway, this is the settled SCOTUS precedent from 1898, they seemed pretty clear about it
educated people in this thread appear to be unfamiliar with it
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | 169 U.S. 649 (1898) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Oh look, CC has been "educated" into agreeing with Trump.
Again.
If we have always had birthright citizenship, why was the 14th amendment only signed into law on July 9th, 1868?
Seriously, neither an originalist nor a textualist argument could change the case law around birthright citizenship without some pretty obscene legal backflips by the Supremes. Now the stooges there are completely capable of those backflips to invent some stupid and arbitrary exclusions, but if you really want a permanent change AND you think your position is uberpopular, draw up a new "mostly whites please" amendment and get to work ratifying it.
If you have a point, please make it
Because the Taney Court had been as bat re ed reactionary as the current one.
The very reason I already stated. Post civil war relating to ex slaves.
The rest had been common law up to that time.
Since the 14th it's all codified into the Cons ution for everyone with the exception of children of high level diplomats or a hypothetical foreign military occupation.
If it was just for former slaves, it would say so. It doesn't.
What are you trying to say here?
Lol "abused"
What talking head told you that?
Dred Scott came up in ChumpDumper's reply, does that case mean anything to you?
(implicitly)
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/wj...ton_review.pdf[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it..
I think SCOTUS might be that scared by now
the mask is off
CC ghosted
guess that was just more racist throat clearing, very typical for CC
not consciously, no
Just about every thread with him:
- make an opinion
- mix in some not so subtle richer brag
- get angry when it turns on him
- eject for a few weeks/ months
Death, taxes, old faithful and the CC forum playbook
accurate
so emo
icu lurking again, CC
no riposte?
tell us about how Wong Kim Ark was wrong and Dred Scott was right
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-28-2025 at 10:45 AM.
Trumplandia continues to lose in court
TRO on the EO remains nationwide
https://assets.bwbx.io/do ents/use...TUGy9vKTZ6g/v0it is notable that the government is not prepared to argue that it will likely prevail on the merits of the Executive Order itself. We are aware of no case – and the government has not cited one – in which a court has stayed a preliminary injunction of a policy, already found likely unlawful, in which the movant did not argue for the policy’s legality. Under these cir stances, especially, we are hesitant to disturb a preliminary injunction that maintains the status quo while the lawfulness of the Executive Order is litigated.
class action certified, TRO issued
you can't repeal the cons ution with an executive order but here we are, the courts have to step in to protect people who might be rendered stateless
https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...ng-2025-07-10/The Supreme Court's decision meant babies born in some parts of the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents risked being denied citizenship and becoming subject to deportation. But the ruling contained an exception for class action lawsuits that seek relief on behalf of a group of similarly situated people nationwide.
Laplante, who had already in a related case concluded Trump's order was uncons utional, said the question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," as children could be deprived of citizenship by Trump's order, which was set to take effect on July 27 following the Supreme Court's ruling.
"That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said during the hearing. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...65710.65.0.pdf
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
