8th Grade ConLaw Quiz...

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "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.


1) Please review section one of the Fourteenth Amendment above, and identify the three categories of persons identified.


2) Extra Credit, name the rights and privileges granted to each category.
 
Jarod said:
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "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.


1) Please review section one of the Fourteenth Amendment above, and identify the three categories of persons identified.


2) Extra Credit, name the rights and privileges granted to each category.
Click to expand...
Looks like we're operating outside the Constitution now. Yay? America.
 
Jarod said:
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "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.


1) Please review section one of the Fourteenth Amendment above, and identify the three categories of persons identified.


2) Extra Credit, name the rights and privileges granted to each category.
Click to expand...
this was made for slaves a long time ago.

you globalist traitor ass spelunkers are abusing it to be asstards.
 
Monad Portal said:
this was made for slaves a long time ago.

you globalist traitor ass spelunkers are abusing it to be asstards.
Click to expand...
It was written to be applicable to the ages. Are you saying we should ignore the 14th because it is old?

If it needs amending that is another story...
 
Jarod said:
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "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.


1) Please review section one of the Fourteenth Amendment above, and identify the three categories of persons identified.


2) Extra Credit, name the rights and privileges granted to each category.
Click to expand...
8 USC 1325: Improper entry by alien
Text contains those laws in effect on January 4, 1995

§1325 . Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
 
Yakuda said:
8 USC 1325: Improper entry by alien
Text contains those laws in effect on January 4, 1995

§1325 . Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Click to expand...
Do statutes supercede the Constitution?
 
Jarod said:
Elaborate?
Click to expand...
Extra judicial killings and harassment of American citizens. Did you hear about that poor 17 year-old American boy the thugs tortured an terrorized because he had brown skin?

Jarod, it's honestly disappointing to me you thought you had to ask that question.

Think, boss.

Cheers.
 
LurchAddams said:
Extra judicial killings and harassment of American citizens. Did you hear about that poor 17 year-old boy the thugs tortured an terrorized.

Jarod, it's honestly disappointing to me you thought you had to ask that question.

Think, boss.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
There is a reason they are systematically dismantling our education system.
 
Jarod said:
You ignored my question, is it to be ignored due to age?

Was the Second Amendment written for Muskets, not Modern Rifles?
Click to expand...
AI Overview



Yes, the Supreme Court has significantly impacted gun laws, particularly with the
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) decision, establishing a "historical tradition" test for gun regulations, leading lower courts to strike down bans on public carry and other restrictions, though some laws, like assault weapon bans, have been upheld or are currently being challenged. News sources like The New York Times, Reuters, PBS, and SCOTUSblog cover these developments, showing both expansions of rights and ongoing legal battles.
Key Supreme Court Decisions & Impacts:
  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): This ruling established that firearm regulations must align with the nation's historical tradition, leading to federal appeals courts striking down open-carry bans in states like California.
  • United States v. Rahimi (2024): The Court affirmed that individuals with domestic violence restraining orders can be disarmed, finding historical precedent for such measures, while also clarifying the application of the Bruen test.
Verifying News Sources:
  • The New York Times: Reported on the Ninth Circuit finding California's open-carry ban unconstitutional post-Bruen, and courts striking down other gun control measures.
  • SCOTUSblog: A leading source for Supreme Court news, detailing ongoing cases challenging state gun restrictions, like magazine bans.
  • PBS NewsHour: Covered the "turmoil" in lower courts after Bruen, with rulings striking down various gun restrictions in states like Texas and Delaware.
  • Reuters: Reported on the Supreme Court directing lower courts to reconsider gun law challenges following Bruen.
  • Forbes: Documented the Supreme Court allowing state gun control laws (like assault weapon bans) to stand by declining to review them in 2025, showing a mixed landscape.
In Summary: The Court's rulings, especially Bruen, have shifted the legal standard, empowering challenges to many gun laws, though the
 
Jarod said:
Do statutes supercede the Constitution?
Click to expand...
It's a law that has not been deemed unconstitutional. The Constitution also says the right of the people to keep and hear arms shall not be infringed but people have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get a gun. STFU you retarded monkey
 
Yakuda said:
It's a law that has not been deemed unconstitutional. The Constitution also says the right of the people to keep and hear arms shall not be infringed but people have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get a gun. STFU you retarded monkey
Click to expand...
The vast majority of laws have not been reviewed by the S.Ct.

That is the most stupid reverse reasoning I have ever seen.
 
Jarod said:
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "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.


1) Please review section one of the Fourteenth Amendment above, and identify the three categories of persons identified.


2) Extra Credit, name the rights and privileges granted to each category.
Click to expand...

Comrade Insurrectionist - can you identify one or more right or immunity granted to citizens of the United States that you of the insurrection do not claim accrue to illegal aliens?

If not, can was surmise that your hive is attempting to erase US Citizenship?

Oh and Comrade Insurrectionist, the key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

The invaders you import are not - they are subjects of their home countries.
 
Jarod said:
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "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.


1) Please review section one of the Fourteenth Amendment above, and identify the three categories of persons identified.


2) Extra Credit, name the rights and privileges granted to each category.
Click to expand...
Hedges v. Obama

District Court (2012): U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest initially ruled in favor of Hedges, issuing a permanent injunction that blocked the government from enforcing the indefinite detention provision because it was unconstitutionally vague. She wrote that First Amendment rights "cannot be legislated away".

Court of Appeals (2013): The Obama administration appealed the decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the injunction. The appeals court did not address the constitutionality of the law itself; instead, it ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal "standing" to challenge the statute because they could not demonstrate a sufficient threat that they would actually be detained under the law.

Supreme Court (2014): The Supreme Court declined to hear the case (denied certiorari) on April 28, 2014, which left the Second Circuit's decision intact and effectively ended the legal challenge.
-----------------------------------------

Trump takes full advantage of door opened by Obama.
 
Jarod said:
The vast majority of laws have not been reviewed by the S.Ct.

That is the most stupid reverse reasoning I have ever seen.
Click to expand...
So what?

Because you're an idiot. You want to claim the Constitution is the overriding rule but there are laws that perfectly reduce the claim. If you actually believed the Constitution was the overriding rule or law you'd be demanding month regulations be removed but your filthy fucking pie hole is quiet isn't it? I'm getting tired of being nice to assholes.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Comrade Insurrectionist - can you identify one or more right or immunity granted to citizens of the United States that you of the insurrection do not claim accrue to illegal aliens?

If not, can was surmise that your hive is attempting to erase US Citizenship?

Oh and Comrade Insurrectionist, the key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

The invaders you import are not - they are subjects of their home countries.
Click to expand...
Sure citizenship is a right that does not accrue to those who came here illegally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top