Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Gelston]

He is saying the Amendment covers only those who are legally here, such as the former slaves and all African Americans born here from them. That is what the actual amendment was created for. Not to allow for anchor babies. He is doing this purely to get it into the courts, which it will, and that will define what the law states.

[Fortybox]

He is saying the Amendment covers only those who are legally here, such as the former slaves and all African Americans born here from them. That is what the actual amendment was created for. Not to allow for anchor babies. He is doing this purely to get it into the courts, which it will, and that will define what the law states.

Bingo - we have a winner!

The left doesn’t view it that way though. The constitution is something to be manipulated and changed to meet the political need at the time.

[Tgo01]

But this is exactly what Trump is counting on. There's not going to be an Executive Order. And the Courts aren't going to touch birthright citizenship because it's not even a question of interpretation- it's explicitly written into our Constitution.

Gun ownership isn't a question of interpretation either yet the courts touch that one all the time.

Also the 14th amendment is open for interpretation. The important part of the 14th amendment is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Could it mean if the parents are citizens or residents?

Are you telling me that if someday the US were invaded and occupied, and the invading army brings their family or gets a foreigner pregnant and has a child on US soil, then the US wins the war and kicks out all of the invaders, the children of these invaders are US citizens and can stay and can eventually sponsor their previously invading parents to come live in the US to be American citizens? You really think this is what they had in mind when they wrote the 14th amendment? Or could it be that since they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US that their children aren't automatically US citizens?

[Gelston]

Gun ownership isn't a question of interpretation either yet the courts touch that one all the time.

Also the 14th amendment is open for interpretation. The important part of the 14th amendment is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Could it mean if the parents are citizens or residents?

Are you telling me that if someday the US were invaded and occupied, and the invading army brings their family or gets a foreigner pregnant and has a child on US soil, then the US wins the war and kicks out all of the invaders, the children of these invaders are US citizens and can stay and can eventually sponsor their previously invading parents to come live in the US to be American citizens? You really think this is what they had in mind when they wrote the 14th amendment? Or could it be that since they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US that their children aren't automatically US citizens?

Technically, if the US was invaded, the taken over territory wouldn't be US soil anymore. If it were occupied, our Constitution would be whatever the occupiers say it is.

[Tgo01]

Technically, if the US was invaded, the taken over territory wouldn't be US soil anymore.

Okay fine just invaded and not occupied. Like they were really bad invaders.

[Fortybox]

Technically, if the US was invaded, the taken over territory wouldn't be US soil anymore. If it were occupied, our Constitution would be whatever the occupiers say it is.

Wrong. By that argument we wouldn’t have had a revolution.

Our constitution lays out the God given rights we have. No worldly authority can take that away.

[Gelston]

Wrong. By that argument we wouldn’t have had a revolution.

Our constitution lays out the God given rights we have. No worldly authority can take that away.

rofl, worldly authorities sure as fuck can.

[Methais]

Uh yeah. There's a reason why the birthright citizenship clause is in the 14th Amendment. Because in Dredd Scott, the Court ruled that people of color were NOT US citizens and could never be.

That language was 100% intentional- to ensure citizenship for millions of people who were born in this country.

But this is exactly what Trump is counting on. There's not going to be an Executive Order. And the Courts aren't going to touch birthright citizenship because it's not even a question of interpretation- it's explicitly written into our Constitution.

He's doing it because he knows morons like Fortybox are going to get all riled up and excited and will want to go out and vote to help end birthright citizenship- which no one can do without a Constitutional amendment.

[time4fun]

He is saying the Amendment covers only those who are legally here, such as the former slaves and all African Americans born here from them. That is what the actual amendment was created for. Not to allow for anchor babies. He is doing this purely to get it into the courts, which it will, and that will define what the law states.

He's incorrect. The amendment language doesn't give any such qualifications.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

A child born in the US is *always* here legally unless they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in which case we're talking about either foreign invaders or diplomats). You are maligning US citizens right now, and it's gross.

[Gelston]

He's incorrect. The amendment language doesn't give any such qualifications.



A child born in the US is *always* here legally unless they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in which case we're talking about either foreign invaders or diplomats). You are maligning US citizens right now, and it's gross.

You're willfully leaving out the and subject to the jurisdiction thereof part. It doesn't say or, it says and. Both be required. That is what is being challenged. It will be decided by the courts. Not you, not me, not Trump, not Congress.