The Supreme Court's rendezvous with "the citizenship clause."
Link to quote: The Supreme Court will weigh Trump's birthright citizenship order this week. Here's what to know about the case. - CBS News
This coming Wednesday the SCOTUS will hear oral arguments involving one of the most important cases in the nation's history. It involves what is known as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868. For decades the Court has gone along with an interpretation that anyone born in the US immediately has citizenship. There are problems with the long-held acceptance of that interpretation. First is the context and the time in which the clause was written. It is widely accepted that the clause was intended to overrule the Supreme Court’s flat out wrongly decided Dred Scott Decision of 1857 which held that a black person whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as enslaved persons was not entitled to protections from the federal courts because he/she was not a U.S. citizen. Second is the wording in the first sentence of the clause which says:
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Citizenship Clause Doctrine | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
There are those who believe that first sentence excludes foreign nationals.
There are those who believe it only excludes:
1 The requirement that a person be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, 2 or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 3
And finally, there are those who think the first sentence is vague and should be ignored.
The last group is wrong because the sentence was placed in the clause for a reason and the Court must determine what that original intent was. I'm sure the legislators in 1868 had no idea how the clause would be abused in the 21st century. Most countries in the world do not allow birthright citizenship. It is basically a very stupid idea.
It comes before the Court because President Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship as one of his first orders of business after being inaugurated to his second term. The order never went into effect because challenges to it were filed almost immediately, and activist district judges around the country temporarily barred the government from implementing the order throughout the country while litigation over the order’s constitutionality continued. The SCOTUS has ruled that district judges exceeded their authority in those nationwide rulings, however the high Court also agreed to hear the merits of the case as well. The case that the Court took on is known as Trump vs Barbara.
Finally, the SCOTUS will be forced to figure out what that first sentence means.
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
Anyone who thinks this is going to be an easy case is wrong.
A decision is expected within a few months.
Unfortunately Vic, there is a lot more to the topic rhat won't get discussed on NT - a heavily witnessed in the past
U.S. Supreme Court Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884
"They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population , he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people."
......to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance . And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wong Kim Ark
No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person 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
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14 th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
.If the parents are not subject to the "jurisdiction of the United States", i.e. owing allegiance to the U.S., the child is not a U.S. citizen.
Sen Howard said it right out loud. There it is.
The only country Donald? There are 30+ nations that do.
https://www.statista.com/chart/34472/countries-which-practice-birthright-citizenship/#:~:text=He%20also%20called%20birthright%20citizenship,a%20prolonged%20period%20of%20time.&text=This%20chart%20shows%20the%20countries,(as%20of%20May%202025).
Thirty countries would be a tiny minority.
You should know that.
Other than 2 nations it is all of North, South and Central America (1B+ souls). However, if it is 'tiny minorities' that concern you, illegal voters are the tiniest of them all.
Where are the voter rolls?
You have to remember, these are conspiracy theorists who believe in a fantasy deep state of which there is zero evidence, they don't care that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. All they know is that they think of themselves as the center of the universe and America and everything is supposed to revolve around them and they're supposed to be in control and yet they lose elections in some States which boggles their mind, who could ever not want them to be in control? And then they look and it's a lot of brown people and people speaking other languages and they think "Ah Ha! It's Illegals! That must be it! That's the reason we don't get 100% of the vote all the time being as righteous and good and special like we are!". And here we are, halfwit conservatives foaming at the mouth over their manufactured straw man of voter fraud that they're battling with all their righteous fury.
In the end, most know deep down that it's not about stopping the fantasy voter fraud, it's about enacting real voter fraud through intimidation, threats and onerous voting laws they know will make it more difficult for specific segments of the legal voting population they know don't tend to vote Republican. But they have to keep up the act that it's about illegal's voting otherwise they'd be completely exposed for the un-American charlatans they are.
Under state control where they belong?
[.][✘]
Yes, just like Republican attempts to disenfranchise eligible voters they know aren't likely to vote for them. This attempt to kill the 14th amendment is just more of the same, conservatives challenging even those born here if not born the way they believe they should have been which apparently is to at least one white Christian conservative parent.
It is becoming EVER more clearer to me that MAGA conservatives are not 'team players' and it is UNACCEPTABLE.
Chris Murphy said it best:
"Murphy stated that the “play” for Democrats to include a path to citizenship has “failed” within the last “30 years” which has neglected to deliver for the undocumented Americans whom they “care about most.” The Connecticut senator stated that due to the alarming increase of illegal migrants crossing over Americans “reality” has changed around the views on the border crisis.
“Well, I mean, Chris, that’s been a failed play for 20 years. So you are right that that has been the democratic strategy for 30 years, maybe, and it has failed to deliver for the people we care about most, the undocumented Americans that are in this country,” Murphy stated."
Sen. Chris Murphy Tells MSNBC Host Illegal Migrants Are ‘People We Care About Most’ | The Daily Caller
When the CA Secretary of State says he doesn't know how many illegals voted in a state that registers people to vote based on an honest answer, it might just be time to turn them over to federal investigators.
Non-citizens aren't supposed to be voting.
Liberals should mirror republicans in a talking point (the time has come): Let's just take for granted that 'everybody' is cheating while voting. . .let's check the conservative voting records thoroughly-NEXT!
The time has come:
Let's make 'new rules' that disenfranchise conservative voters when back in power! Just deserts!
And they aren't in any meaningful numbers unless you can produce some proof they do. We've been waiting for years and conservatives have presented exactly bupkis, nada, nil, zilch, NO FUCKING EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD! Problem solved. Now back to the ELIGIBLE VOTERS I mentioned being disenfranchised. How about Republicans stop targeting them with what the courts called "surgical precision"? Stop trying to deflect and distract from the real issue here, absolute proof of Republican voter fraud dressed up in the slimy guise of voter integrity checks. Fucking scum bags. And of course, they never stop to address it, they just turn away and start shouting about illegals voting again even though they have zero evidence of it.
North Carolina's Deliberate Disenfranchisement of Black Voters - The Atlantic
Statistically, those who do are negligible. They are not a problem. They make zero difference. They should not vote, but this is not a problem.
There is no proof of that. If we simply accept the word of applicants, and they falsely claim citizenship, they become registered voters. We need a list of citizens at this point to cross check voter rolls.
The proof should be that significant illegals are voting. You prove that first before acting.
This is Trump, yet again, trying to rig the election. As usual, Trump is full of irony as he often accuses others of what he does.
I read somewhere in over a Billion votes cast they found like a few hundred, if that, or was it 1500, it really doesn;t matter which as it just examples how infrequently it happens and this bill is just a suppression instrumeant by Trump to help the GOP retain the house and senate that they are pretty sure to have difficulty holding if things continue along the current path. Trump is bringing down the whole party, and not fast enough, as their fealty to he is why and where they be where they be.
How can that be done without seeing voter rolls or ballots?
You prove that first before acting.
No, the horse must go before the cart.
I can only imagine where you read that.
Wrong. You do not engage in a solution before you know you have a problem. There is no evidence suggesting this is a problem.
You can't find evidence without investigating. You want to withhold everything and say where is the proof.
We want to investigate because there is a lot of smoke in the air. We have crazies running the state of California into the ground and somehow, they keep getting elected. That state is 27% foreign born. People can register when they get a driver's license. Is anyone checking to see if those who identify as "citizens" actually are citizens?
In the meantime, that state is painted in blue before a national election is even held.
We want to see the voter rolls.
And where did you read that illegal immigrants were a serious problem ? Cause now that I think of it, it may have been the loony left bastion known as the Heritage Foundation. Where is your evidence from again ?
Trump (and of course his cult) is trying to create an excuse to impose additional requirements in the belief that the measures will dissuade more D than R voters.
Identify the problem supported by evidence before enacting a solution!
The Heritage Foundation states 77 people between 1999 and 2023
Yep, a real game changer Vic.
That is ridiculous. You should not wait until a potential (likely) problem becomes a problem before putting in safeguards so it will never become a problem
This is a disaster waiting to happen. It is not a matter of if but when. It is shocking that some folks want to wait until we don't have a fair election before making sure this does not become a problem we can't back out of.
Another stupid 'argument' in an attempt to defend Trump.
I did not claim that we should wait until a likely problem becomes a problem.
I wrote that you first "Identify the problem supported by evidence before enacting a solution!".
Very different. Pay attention.
An example of a likely problem, supported by evidence, that is almost certainly going to be a problem is climate change.
You mean be preventive instead of reactive? Now you know common sense like that doesn't exist in shitholes like California.
Bullshit. Just the expected partisan accusation in an attempt to divert from a comment
Yea, you pretty much did.
Identify the problem: People that get a license in some states automatically can be registered to vote by saying they are a citizen.
Evidence: People that get a license in some states automatically can be registered to vote by saying they are a citizen. That makes it extremely easy for illegals to vote, especially since it seems no one is checking to verify either before or after they vote.
Why make it easy for people to cheat? That it is easy to cheat is a problem. Anyone with common sense would see that. The only ones that insist on "proof" are the partisans that don't want it harder to cheat. I can't imagine why. S/
Hard to believe some on the left are trying to twist being proactive into a bad thing
Yea. I am sure none of them lock the doors to their house or cars until they have personally been robbed.
Faux obtuseness.
'Identify the problem' means, in this case, to have real evidence that illegals are voting at a statistically significant level. That means at a level where they could potentially impact election results. Real data. Actual evidence.
Imagining a problem for partisan purposes is entirely different from identifying an actual problem.
Of course, you resort to dishonest misrepresentation.
Have you built a shelter with years of food supply in case the USA is subjected to a nuclear attack?
Does your doctor prescribe treatment for heart disease before gaining evidence that you are at risk?
If illegals are voting at a level (or are trending this way) where they could statistically affect the outcome, then it makes sense to create a solution. Before that, this is a solution to a non-problem.
It's obvious that these commenters did not watch any of the January 6th hearings where as a vast majority of the testimony was from Republicans. Republicans in charge of elections found Biden won and it was one of the safest fairest elections ever held in the USA. His own AG lowered Barr testified under oath that Trumps claim of a rigged election was "Bullshit"!
Trump knows diving fast and bringing down the GOP as well with out a blast from basically Trump only past, as suddenly without PROOF, Trump claimed stolen elections while barely at all found from every inspection.
I have no problem with an easy to obtain voter ID for voters, but common sense legitimate means are needed so as it doesn't disenfranchise voters due to undo burdens as Trumps stupid save America Act does activate. A women's maiden name ??? as it wouldn't match if she took her husbands sir name, WTF people. Yes the majority want some common ID for voting, but chasing down birth certificates and or obtaining passports before November is just a blatant attempt to help Repubs keep from getting the thorough whooping they are on course for and long overdue.
Partisan motives are typically very obvious. They are often not based on fact but rather on a desired outcome.
Probably because they didn't think of it. Although I don't think they understand what it all means.
‘in any meaningful numbers’
So now it’s ‘meaningful numbers’. What happened to ‘illegals can’t vote’ leftists have been pushing for years.
Just because a fairly small amount have been caught does not mean a much larger number has gotten away with it. Leftists claim our elections are secure, but yet, your own post shows that claim is bs.
Just because a fairly small amount have been caught ONLY proves a fairly small about have done it. Nothing more, nothing less.
No illegals should vote. I have not seen anyone here claiming otherwise.
The point is that illegals voting is so rare that it is not a problem. No system is 100% perfect. Trying to fix a problem with an overkill 'solution' in the 99th percentile is fucking stupid.
This is not about trying to fix a real problem, it is about trying to dissuade voters who are unlikely to vote R.
More partisan ignoring of a likely problem. First, make it easy to cheat. Then state you need evidence there is cheating. Then don't allow the information to help prove the cheating not available because of some bullshit excuse.
Surely even a partisan can see registering people to vote while getting a license with just their word makes it extremely likely there will be and is cheating. Too bad none of the dem states are looking for for it, they will never find it. But that is the idea.
Ignoring the likelihood illegals voting for partisan purposes is entirely different then admitting the potential is there and great with no one watching for it
The dishonesty comes from asking for proof and then not allowing an investigation to get the proof.
Now you are trying to compare illegals voting to the probability of a nuclear attack?
Another false equivalency is all you have.
How many are voting that don't get caught? Yea, because everyone would agree to a redo if one side felt illegals cost them an election.
Just like Iran is not a problem until it has a nuke that can reach us.
Tru dat
Understanding ramifications is not a forte to many on the left.
Exactly. And since they are not looking for illegals that vote it is surprising they find as many as they do.
That is silly. You are saying if they don't get caught it means no one did it.
Turning a blind eye to it is just as bad as condoning it. How many illegals voted that didn't get caught? What are dem cities doing about making sure illegals don't vote other than "we told them not to."
No, your point is actually illegals don't get caught very much. It does no even try to take into consideration the ones that have done it and have not getting caught because no one is looking for it.
Yes, because we all know the dems are talking about dem voters being to dumb to prove they are citizens.
Your position here is clearly a demand to prove a negative. Powerful stuff there, lol. The reason that there is no evidence is that there is no crime. Non-racist people acknowledge this as axiomatic.
My position is if you make it easy to cheat don't ignore the probability that it is going on and getting worse. Especially since no one is looking for it. Why would dems make it so easy for illegals to vote? Why is common sense lost on the partisans?
And murder victims were not really murdered because no one was caught.
Blinders are not a good look on you
Hence the reason many of these blue cities/states won't give up their voter rolls.
Absolutely there are illegals voting and these morons on blue cities don't want to give up their base.
Exactly...
By liberal logic, let's say I robbed a bank. If I never get caught, then that, to them, means no one has ever robbed a bank.
Absolutely insane thought process.
All it takes is one person to not get caught and no murders have ever happened.
This is probably why they ignore illegals killing American women
Here is what I think about this: It is time for democrats to stop groveling before republicans and conservatives asking for 'pretty please'!
Democrats and liberals, will you have some self respect to DEMAND what is right AND insist upon it no matter what?!!! Enough 'footing' around with people whose 'only' interest in liberals is defined as 'no Mercy'!
Since conservatives insist on being 'super-dicks' - let's PERSUADE liberals up and down the line to go get WHATEVER those 'dicks' are demanding (once the die is casts on the subject) and beat them at their own STUPID game!
That is pretty much their approach to crime reporting.
Nobody is also looking for the boogie man under their bed for the same reason.
So nonsense is the best you can do
A foolish admission. . ."the LIKELIHOOD" . . . is an argument from silence. Conservatives are once again making 'charges' and insisting that the world INDULGE them at it. "Likelihood" that illegals are voting for partisan purposes" . . . the fools do not even realize that there are plenty migrants in this country that come from worse places in the world with compelling reasons to want to be conservative in the States. . . as it is a 'natural' default for their states of consciousness. . .were their own homelands not vicious AND savage to them.
Fools of fools, that spite their own faces. . . .
And how is searching around for illegals going? Finding the 'critters' that are ruining the conservative takeover and domination of us all?! All of THEM?!!
Be sure to get all them critters - y'all here? So we can get a 'better' count that is sure to please even the most skeptical! /s
And you are arguing from silence or 'near' silence! We know you have no significant election winning fraud prevention numbers to present, because ]the Bloated Head One' that has been in control for a year now would be shouting it from the proverbial rooftops! Silly, indeed!
And why has MAGA supporters. . .in charge of the devices of power. . .not produced those overwhelming numbers that buoy up the delusional republican consciousness? Where are the real (not imaginary) numbers?!!! WHERE ARE THEY?!!!
Fools running around fu-king up every day citizens lives and livelihood. . . looking for ghosts in the machine. . . because they are too stupid to realize that people want to be FREE on the constant, repetitive, bullsh-t pretenses of freedom that ain't freedom at all. Just a f-ked up new form of slavery!
And ghosts do exist, because people do believe in them! /s
See how powerful a belief system can be. . . or is it. . . how dangerous a belief system can be without facts and evidence of fact?
Where are the red "cities/states" voter rolls . . . let's subject them to proper inspection. Show them first!
Logic states all one has to do to prove the bank was robbed is present some evidence properly displayed to law enforcement of theft. The determination will be made because of fact!
Consider the 'legendary' account of one D. B. Cooper:
So yes, the facts account for the theft - no just talk about D. B. Cooper. That is, people witnessed the hijack, demand for cash, plane refueling on the ground, and aft door departure. . . plus more (see Wikipedia).
More absurd reasoning. You pretend that illegals voting is a real problem and that people are turning a blind eye to it. Objective, rational minds recognize that illegals voting is NOT a problem and is nowhere near becoming a problem.
You are pushing a partisan talking point. It is pathetic.
Besides how can people turn a 'blind eye' to what some conservatives' FIND as fact on illegal voting? If it is true - then it is factual. It can be put to the 'test' critically.
Some conservatives and their supporters are plagued by delusional stupidity, tiresome, problematic, and destructive. It's revolting!
Objective rational minds with any common sense at all knows that the easier you make it to cheat the more people will take advantage of it.
You are pushing denial partisan talking point. It is sad.
Show them all at the same time
Well, we do understand that in political warfare, truth is the first thing to suffer, so excuse me if we expect a MAGA double-cross!
You continue to pretend that illegal voting is a problem when there is no evidence that the rare cases are even statistically significant.
Pushing this nonsense is the partisan crap, not the commonsense note that you want to engage in a national overkill to address a problem that you cannot even quantify.
I understand left wing media does not tell you this, but there are DOCUMENTED, and PROSECUTED instances of illegals voting over several elections, even one that had voted the last 4 presidential elections.
Why do leftists refuse to acknowledge that if a few are caught, there are probably many more not caught....because their blue city/state representatives cover for them.
Quite possibly your google is broken
From chat GTP
At least 12 Republican‑led (“red”) states have provided or stated they will provide their full statewide voter registration lists — including sensitive data such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers — to the federal government.
🗳️ Which red states are included?
According to the Brennan Center’s tracker, the following states have complied or indicated they will comply with the full data request:
Alaska
Arkansas
Indiana
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
Ohio
Oklahoma (later settled with DOJ)
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Wyoming
Red States That Partially Complied
Alaska
Provided its publicly available voter registration list and answered DOJ questions about NVRA compliance.
Did not provide sensitive data.
Arizona (red‑leaning / GOP legislature)
Responded to DOJ letters and defended its compliance with federal law.
No evidence it provided sensitive voter data; responses were informational, not full compliance.
Kentucky
Listed among states sued for refusing to provide full unredacted rolls.
This indicates it did not fully comply, but the DOJ tracker does not show it providing full data.
Because it is sued for non‑production, it is not fully compliant, but no evidence shows it provided nothing at all. (Inference based on lawsuit status; not directly stated as partial.)
Oklahoma (before settlement)
Initially refused to provide full sensitive data due to state law restrictions.
Later entered a settlement with DOJ, indicating some level of cooperation short of full early compliance.
Blue states have not given full voter rolls to the federal government
Across multiple sources, blue states appear overwhelmingly in the category of refusing, partially complying, or being sued for not handing over unredacted voter registration lists.
Now, let me switch your question...
Where are the blue "cities/states" voter rolls . . . let's subject them to proper inspection. Show them first
Many? You feeling generous today?
the easier you make it to cheat the more people will take advantage of it. True or false?
First of all, you seem to have the notion that it is easy for an illegal immigrant to cheat and vote illegally.
Second, clearly your theory is nonsense since millions of illegals have been in the nation for decades and there is no problem with illegals voting.
You are trying to justify an overkill solution for a non-problem. Better for you to focus on a real problem — a lunatic holding the most powerful office on the planet.
OK, you got me. Most
Your question is the core of a fully stupid argument. Logically extended, that would mean that we should apply overkill measures in every aspect of life to try to prevent rare cases where people are cheating.
Illustrating the absurdity of your argument (enumerated by ChatGPT):
False equivalency.
the easier you make it to cheat the more people will take advantage of it. True or false?
So are you going to offer any explanation as to why you believe it's a false equivalency? It's really not... but I'd like to hear examples of failed logic.
You are just tossing shit now. It is pathetic.
Well, now that I think about it, I wouldn't trust red states "compliance" on delivery of voter rolls to government (Trump) any further than I could throw him or them.
Moreover, your statement is incoherent. On one hand you imply or outright state red state "full compliance" and on the other-hand there are conditional statements undergirding and "supporting" partial compliance. Mealy-mouthed!
At least you admit you can't refute what I actually said so you have to get personal.
He didn't have to refute it, it was dead on arrival.
No one is "Making it easier to cheat" so your question it pointless. There are people desperately trying to make it harder to vote but they have presented ZERO evidence of any widespread cheating so the question really is, "Why are conservatives so desperate to make it harder to vote?" and of course the answer is "Because they have studied voting patterns and know which groups of voters tend to vote when and what forms of ID they're most likely not to have so they craft laws to intentionally disenfranchise ELIGIBLE voters so they can win election they know they can't win without cheating. So, fuck any dumb fuck partisan asshole who is BLATANTLY LYING about voter fraud just to keep Democrats from voting. Fuck them and the sack of voter fraud lies they rode in on.
Pathetic. Why even pen such feeble bullshit?
You already admitted it once that you could not actually refute the comment, no need to do it again.
Total bullshit
Why do partisan dems think it is only their voters that are too stupid to get ID's?
Why do red-states keep moving the goalposts? Now, trying to end the easy convenience of voting by mail (The Bloated Head One: Trump and his Scourge.)
The Bloated Head One, even voted by mail himself! What a monster this guy is.
I am against gerrymandering by either side but since it seems to be a practice used by both sides people should stop whining about it when the other side does it.
Not sure of all the particulars but on the face of it I do not think it is needed.
Great idea. Why are the dem states fighting this so hard if they have nothing to hide?
Please do cite any laws Democrats are trying to pass to make it easier to "cheat". And on that note, conservatives haven't even proven that States without voter ID laws do make it easier to cheat since they can't prove widespread voter fraud IN ANY STATE. So, either prove the cheating is happening or just shut the fuck up about it. The only 'total bullshit' is conservatives claims that there is widespread voter fraud that needs to be corrected with new voter laws. And it's hilarious that you can't prove me wrong.
Okay. So what circumstances currently in practice do you 'find' fault with mail-in voting? Let's get a fact or several on the table.
MAGA conservatives are trying to FORCE EQUITY (a level playing field for a conservative minority in our country) upon the entirety of the U. S. public. According to such people the rights and privileges of us all are theirs to decide, judge, reprove, and enact—no liberals need 'apply.'
Equity, these fakers, that want to be taken seriously, despise EQUITY until and unless they seek it.
Are you now just going to post lies? That is pure trolling.
[✘]
‘Please do cite any laws Democrats are trying to pass to make it easier to "cheat’
Requiring mass mailings of ballots to every address within the state, whether the person on the label lives there or not, or if the person is even alive
Total bullshit. There is no "requirement" in any state to send "ballots" to every house and to dead Americans. Your claim is complete horse shit without a link proving exactly what you claim, which of course you can't do since it's made-up rightwing garbage as are most of their talking points. Are there States where ballots do get sent to deceased voters because they died recently and hadn't been taken off the rolls? Yes, happens in every State. Does that prove any voter fraud? Of course not, you'd have to have your head shoved so far up Trumps ass it cut off the circulation to your brain to believe that happens often enough to affect any election outcomes. Do rightwing conservatives really think the rest of America is stupid or gullible enough to believe their bullshit? News flash, we're not. The only ones buying it are the low IQ poorly educated bigots Trump loves to love.
Yes, he certainly does.
Well, that post was certainly an unhinged rant, but here is the proof tour left wing sources fail to tell you
These ballots go to what these states consider eligible voters but don’t take into consideration whether the people they are being mailed to still lives in that address.
what is stopping a less than honest leftist from getting a ballot where the addressee does not live and fill it out with whatever lunatic leftist name they want to put on it?
What is stopping someone in a long term care facility from filling out a ballot where the intended resident passed away?
There are plenty of ways to cheat with all mail in balloting, leftists just refuse to admit it.
Please identify a "way to cheat" that "rightists" have caught "leftists" doing so. . .no more speculation will do!
Show me where i said leftists DO cheat. I said open mailing leaves the possibility open. Just like ballot harvesting. Too much opportunity to cheat. Anybody that thinks different is perfectly ok to that cheating
I'm sorry, but your "proof" that EVERY HOUSE gets a ballot is proved false by your own link.
Here is what you claimed:
Here is what the link you provided said:
So, your claim is bullshit as I said. I'm just tired of the endless braindead dipshits trying to claim voter fraud without any actual evidence of it. These States that have the mail-in-ballot voting have had every election scrutinized and no one has ever found any widespread voter fraud occurring. Mail-in-ballots are safe, convenient and affective at getting the most eligible voters to vote. If conservatives think it's so horrible and is rife with cheating PROVE IT! Then you can have your little shit-fit like a toddler crying about fantasy voter fraud under the bed. Fucking babies.
And if it left 'open' so what?! Do you have evidence that a fool has ventured through the "opening" you see - into the TRAP that will lead his or her ass into an arrest, a legal court setting, and a possible jail/prison setting?
The law looks after itself. You know this, and are pretending to want to punish what you know not!
They are upset over 'ghosts' and we all can attest to how much EVIDENCE there is for immaterials. Also, bugsy should try to find data on how one goes about stopping, arresting, and even counting ghosts.
Maybe they can start airing episodes of "Voter Fraud Hunters!" on A&E along with the Ghost Hunter shows. At the end of every episode, they promise to continue the search! "They'll find that voter fraud eventually! But in the meantime, gullible viewers, I mean 'true believers' should stay tuned for the next episode! And while you're at it, why not try some of the lovely products our advertisers are promoting!".
Two weeks rings a bell.
Very good.
Now tell us what is stopping someone from receiving these ballots in places those eligible voters no longer live, fill it out with their favorite socialist, and mail it back in.
" I'm just tired of the endless braindead dipshits trying to claim voter fraud without any actual evidence of it. "
No one cares wat you are tired of. You have been shown proof many times here, you just refuse to accept it....because talking points don't allow for it.
You got it covered!
WHERE? Where is there evidence of widespread voter fraud? You claim it exists, show us! A link, anything showing widespread voter fraud! All you've done is show how a handful of people, many Republicans voting more than once for Trump, tried to vote fraudulently and were caught because the checks we have on our elections actually work. No widespread illegal votes have been found, no evidence at all that ANY election result would have been changed, not even in any California election or any other liberal State. The votes have been counted by both political parties, and no widespread voter fraud was found. If you've got some evidence, PLEASE produce it so we can stop having this useless debate. Otherwise, you know what you can do with the moronic stupid baseless conjecture about widespread voter fraud or why we need new laws to battle the widespread voter fraud and that would be to stick it DEEEEEEEEP back up from where you pulled that stupid shit.
You have not provided evidence of it yet. We can not accept 'theory' in lieu of facts. Okay. Okay. Let's try this:
Read the small print in the image above. And, below:
Continuation:
- For " Bugsy "
Where did I say there was WIDESPREAD evidence? How about doing us ALL a favor and not put words into a post I did not type. I specifically said that if there were some that got away with it, there are certainly many more that did not.
"stick it DEEEEEEEEP back up from where you pulled that stupid shit."
If only we can get some of what is in your posts to go the same way.
My God...What part of "it does happen" do you not understand?
What would you consider to be enough fraud for you to take notice?
Will it be if one of your candidates claim fraud and that is when you take notice?
How about we find the ones that do take place and find ways to make sure it doesn't happen again?
Or are you just ok with ot?
If it were accelerating at a level where one could project that in a few years it could affect the outcome of an election.
Right now, it is a non-problem, a mere statistical blip. Those who are pushing this as if it is a problem are clearly doing so for ulterior motives.
Here is a problem: Trump as PotUS. Work on that since that is affecting everyone and in a major way.
I would consider a proper CHALLENGE that proves itself out to be enough to take notice. . . and, that means it goes through court where people whom break the law ought to end up!
* In California, generally, we have written on our ballots words to the effect (warning) that signature will be compared to file at time of registering.
If Donald had wanted to be a judge. . . he should have sought the position. . .otherwise. . . let the courts do their opinion-making without the insults from a 'lying delusional man' of a president that absolutely cares about little and few people except himself and expediency.
[✘]
While you are trying to question me, your time would be better spent getting cross with Donald as he is the one calling judges, "dumb judges" - the insult. See: Comment 2.
‘otherwise. . . let the courts do their opinion-making’
This is why we have so many left wing rogue judges in our midst. They use their opinions and do not rule based on law precedent.
Trump has had quite a few rogue judges in our opinions overturned by higher courts because feelings do not count.
Feelings do not count? And, that is the problem: We have a bunch of dumb ass people FAT on success and the excesses of others trying to live the entirety of their lives as unfeeling and thus, INSINCERE ideologues! What can go wrong. . .
It is one reason that this world (that we make for ourselves) is F-ked up. Too many "purists" and ideologues (monsters) are running around trying to decide the fate of FEELING and ENGAGED people.
You know what I see? This country, this beautiful country of ours, enjoys to much freedom and time on its hands. . .our 'excesses' are too much for us. . .and so we have time to be truly PAIN IN THE . . . to each other on a daily and cyclic basis!
Oh, and since you will never talk about Trump: Let me.
The Bloated Head One is the very personification of right-wing VENGEANCE and RETRIBUTION - driven by his emotional baggage and all the misdirection and lack of insincerity in the world has not fixed that!
‘Feelings do not count?’
Not when it comes to a judicial decision. Anybody that uses feelings to make a decision needs to be thrown off tje bench
If a law violates and harms innocent people. . . discretion is the order of the day and judges are often allowed that. We certainly see judges. . .and juries giving "benefit of the doubt" all the time. Let's not pretend it does not occur AS IT DOES!
And yes, judges decide their judgements based on what the law is and also what the law ALLOWS. Objectivity will get you to a final conclusion based on merit. . . decisions are strictly under the control (99.99 percent) of the time.
You know this. Do not try to pretend otherwise, just to argue pointlessly!
First, I think the administration has the better of the constitutional argument. The exception of the Indians makes it clear that birthright citizenship is not consistent with the text.
second, as a policy, it’s suicidal in the modern era. An adversary with foresight can simply purchase elections with test tubes and modest investment. Fund a million “Americans” who were born here, returned home and the foreign government controls the vote. For the cost of a A couple Somali daycares gives a foreign power decides who the president is.
hopefully, the court overrules birthright citizenship by right and congress rewrites federal law in a similar fashion.
For all those reasons plus original intent.
Fingers crossed
Can you speak to the national debt?
[✘]
This article isn't about the national debt. Want to talk about that, seed your own article.
So kind of a sore subject, got it.
Not a sore subject at all. The deflections from you are tiresome.
‘The deflections from you are tiresome.’
Bigly
Even Scott Jennings said this is stupid. 4 of 5 trumps kids are anchor babies and Malaria trump isn't a legal citizen. Wake up.
They will not wake up. They think to be awake is to be "WOKE"! It's bullsh-t. And they are It! I saw that defender of Trump "bullsh-ter" Scott Jennings on "The Arena" today and even as he 'conceded' a point. . .he diligently tried to 'install' a new one of sorts. . . .
You can probably discern that I have no use for people like Jennings! A man without a heart for 'Others,' other than how to manipulate them as a talking point disgusts me.
from ChatGPT(because I know that you respect it so much):
I’ll take those in order and keep it tight and grounded in the actual doctrine.
1) The “Indians exception” and the text
The historical record cuts the other way.
Why the earlier “Indian” discussions don’t undermine that:
So the “exception” wasn’t a general carve-out from birthright citizenship. It was a specific sovereignty issue that Congress later resolved. The Court has never read it as limiting birthright citizenship for everyone else.
2) Could the Court “overrule birthright citizenship”?
Not realistically without a major doctrinal break.
Both would run straight into:
That’s not impossible in theory, but it would be a very high bar, not a routine reinterpretation.
3) The “foreign government breeding voters” scenario
This runs into practical and legal constraints:
More broadly, if a foreign state had the capacity to shape U.S. outcomes at that scale, there are far cheaper and faster tools (cyber, media, financing, influence ops) than waiting a generation for voters to age in.
Bottom line
That's quite a collection of strawmen rebutting claims I never made.
Cool.
Well why don't you try to rebut them then?
Specifically, try to show me how each is a "strawman" and how each does not refute your claims of "The exception of the Indians makes it clear that birthright citizenship is not consistent with the text."
Why would I rebut what I agree with?
"The exception of the Indians makes it clear that birthright citizenship is not consistent with the text."
Most of the points don't even pretend to rebut the textual argument. Tribal Indians are not dual citizens under the Constitution because of the dual allegiance concerns. Appy that thought to citizens of a country who are legally required to help their birth country's intelligence agencies.
Please enlighten me.
Well, all I can say is: THAT JUST BLOWS THE CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION NOT BEING A LIVING DOCUMENT.
"Suddenly" and with enough subtlety that it can easily go unnoticed, MAGA supporters WANT the constitution to be for the "modern era" (A living document).
Some MAGA conservatives: Do you ever get tired of the own bullsh-t?
Yo MAGA supporters and talking heads: Is the constitution a STATIC DOCUMENT or LIVING DOCUMENT OR DO YOU WISH IT TO BE BOTH?
It would be if that was the basis of my argument. It's why I said separated the Constitutional argument from the policy one.
n easily go unnoticed, MAGA supporters WANT the constitution to be for the "modern era" (A living document)
I have no idea why you are directing this to me or to the argument I made.
I'm sorry, your 'argument' does not cancel mine about an INCONSISTENCY with conservatives who are always trying to bend the world to its will using hook or crook. Either the Constitution is a static ("originalist") document or it is a living document ("modern era") . . . if that is to hard for you to answer. . .let's just say. . .I understand!
IT's not hard to answer. It's a static document and nothing I wrote is inconsistent with that.
Then, what is this "modern era" concern you mentioned that the constitution should respect and recognize? MAGA supporters should not concern themselves with constitutional "modernism."
Please tell me where you imagine I did this.
I thought you 'understood' when you tried to answer back. See 3.3. in the red. Then, please let us in on what you "really" meant. (Rolls eyes.)
Maybe Congress can amend the law to include protections for those accused of drop kicking newborn babies of non-citizens over the border.
Sniff, sniff, it is sad.
Examples???
Examples of drop kicking babies? Sarcasm has escaped you. However, what we have all learned through the Trump experience is that literally nothing is too extreme to become reality. I saw yesterday that the J6 criminals are suing the police that they are on video violently attacking.
Rough day for recognizing sarcasm - sorry Hal.
this is just one private Chinese citizen doing this, put the state behind it and bye bye elections
9% of the births in the US were to non-citizens, so almost 1/10 of all births are to foreign nationals, how long before they can start to influence elections legally?
They'd make far better citizens then the braindead bigots infesting many parts of America today.