tvc184

🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, it’s heck when actual law is bright up! Biased? With your comment, better take a look in the mirror. When looking up bias in the Miriam Webster, dictionary, it shows your SETX Sports icon. Avoiding the question is intriguing however…. 😂😂😂

When has Trump been proven to rape women?

What a rally. Nederland had one hit going into the sixth inning. Nederland rallied for three in the bottom of six and two in the bottom of seven to win it 5-4.

After 6: BH 4 runs on 5 hits and Nederland 3 runs on 5 hits.

It won’t matter. Listening to much of the oral arguments it seems clear that the results will be similar to same sex marriages. How do you enforce it? Where do you go back to in history? And in effect, nothing changes. It will be hailed as breaking ground but it will simply allow what has happened since 1868.

Listening to Brown-Jackson’s logic is hard on the brain. You know, if she was in Japan and stole a wallet then the Japanese police would arrest her but if she had her wallet stolen in Japan, she would expect the police to arrest whoever did it. That’s why we need birthright citizenship. 🤣🤣🤣 I guess when you can’t define what a woman is, that’s about as deep as a person can think.

Does this mean that you will not accept a cabinet position?? 🤣

They didn’t specifically mention the presidency but Sauer in his arguments stated that by 2015 there were like 200 or 500 (I don’t remember the numbers) companies in China whose business it is to send women to the US to have babies and then bring them back to China to be raised by their laws and culture. Then they could return later as they were US citizens at birth. One is the follow up questions for his was something like, is there any evidence of that happening or any numbers of people returning or something to that effect. My follow up might have been, it’s only 11 years since 2015. No one born around then is an adult yet.

That was touched on in the oral arguments.

… or they wanted to put the issue to rest.

He

Yeah, that’s why I think interest balancing may come into play. Interest balancing when I heard it is like safety versus the Second Amendment. One side argues that it is an individual right to possess defense firearms. The other side says that has to be weighed against the safety of the public because of statistics. So if the homicide rate is higher in Chicago, the city can ban the possession of firearms in the interest of safety over individual rights. So government interest is balanced against individual rights. No matter what Elk and Wong Son Ark say, is it more of an interest for consistency as opposed to the original intent. In the oral arguments going on right now it was asked, “what about the humanitarian crisis?”. Was humanitarian issues of people from other countries intent of the Fourteenth Amendment or was the intent to make sure that African slaves were not denied citizenship after the Dred Scott decision? I don’t thing they writing and debate on the Fourteenth Amendment at that time was about people in other countries who may have bad living conditions. I such an issue would be ludicrous but that was the question just asked. What about the humanitarian crisis….. So no matter what, I think and have thought that the Supreme Court will finally put the issue to rest and simply say if you can make it to US soil at birth, you are a citizen, which in effect changes nothing from the last 150 years. But….. what will they say, if anything, about territories overseas?

If you look at Supreme Court precedent , there is a good case for not having birthright citizenship. I just don’t see it happening. I think interest balancing (which this court doesn’t really subscribe to) may come into play.

I might make it over there. My older brother did 26 years in the Navy and lives in Richmond. I am sure that he will take part. I wish the Battleship Texas was back open to the public but it still has a few months before the final berth is ready in Galveston.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on birthright citizenship for people illegally in the country. People who support birthright citizenship almost always point to Wong Kim Ark as the defining case demanding it. After reading Ark (a long time ago), that doesn’t seem to be the conclusion that the Supreme Court decided. In Elk v. Wilkins 14 years after the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American born on US soil in what is now called the lower 48 contiguous states, was not an American at birth. Why? Because he owed allegiance to a sovereign Indian nation, the Winnebago. In owing allegiance to a foreign nation, in this case on US soil, did but fit the meaning in the Fourteenth Amendment of being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Was Elk subject to US laws? Absolutely. If new committed theft, murder, not paying taxes, etc., he was subject to American laws. The Supreme Court decided that didn’t fit the meaning of being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Along came Wong Kim Ark not long afterwards. Ark was born in the US to parents were subject to the Emperor of China. Like Elk, Ark owed allegiance to a foreign nation. So what was different? Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally and had submitted to US jurisdiction by being granted permanent residency and by running a business with the consent of this nation and the state. Again, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were given lawful permanent residence in this country before he was born. That was sufficient for being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But let’s not take my word for it. Let’s see what the Supreme Court said in their concluding statement in the case making Wong Kim Ark a citizen, …….who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed Note that the Supreme Court makes notice that the family are subjects to a foreign jurisdiction, the Emperor of China… BUT have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, again, their quote. is that the same as illegal entry into this country, as many people claim? If the Supreme Court intended for every person born on US soil to be citizens, why wasn’t that their decision? Why did the Supreme Court bring up the family being subject to the Emperor of China but it changed because they were given a permanent residence in the US? Hmmmm…. Because they thought it mattered perhaps? This was a precedent setting case and the Supreme Court was well aware of it. TheIr final statement could have simply been, “any person born on US soil is a citizen”. Nope, the Supreme Court worded the decision how it was asked. Was Wong Kim Ark a citizen? Yes as his family was given permanent residency under US law. In my opinion the Supreme Court has not ruled on people in this country unlawfully. In fact in the case of Elk, he was in this country lawfully and was still denied citizenship at birth. What in Wong Kim Ark overturned that? In my opinion, nothing. So we will finally have a ruling on birthright citizenship. Like I have already said in this forum, I feel like the Supreme Court will say that birthright citizenship is constitutional and that will put that issue away. Looking at Supreme Court precedent, it doesn’t appear to be so definitive as some people claim.