Birthright DECISION, Trump is WRONG.

Tbird19482 said:
You do know an Amendment to the Constitution has to be approved by 2/3s of all states and by a 2/3s majority in those states so IMO am Amendment that would reverse this ruling doesn't have a chance.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was wrong it is not 2/3 s of the states that need to pass it but 3/4 s of the states according to this
www.bing.com

an amendment to the constitution need to be ppassed by how many states - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
And I really don't think you will get 3/4 of all the states to pass an Amendment against Birth right citizenship.
 
This isn't over. It is grounds to deny pregnant foreigners visas to come to America, though.
Also to expedite the cancellation of visas and removal for any pregnant foreigners here.
 
Damocles said:
Did the Dissent describe a path to success? There were rumors... (or rumours for those british amongst us)....
Click to expand...
Yes, but it puts the onus on this POS Congress. Really the best we can do right now is vote as good as possible this November and see what happens from there.
Oh, and equip TSA with pregnancy tests and Sonogram machines.
 
QP! said:
Kavanaugh's concurrence gave a little light to a path for future success if this issue comes back. He was trying to narrow the amendment to say it was really just about 'slavery' and not protections for all others.
Click to expand...
Saying it was about slavery has been the MAGA moron argument from the get-go. They also want to bring back enslaving more people, especially African-Americans, through the 13th Amendment loophole.

The US has more prisoners than any country in the world. Even more than China despite they have 4 times as many people.

Highest to Lowest - Prison population total | World Prison Brief

www.prisonstudies.org www.prisonstudies.org

As shown by Trump's Bible, the White Nationalists would like to eliminate all the amendments after the Tenth. More proof all MAGAts are evil.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
T. A. Gardner said:

​


Only legally. In every other sense, he was correct.
Click to expand...
Doesn't give you much hope moving forward does it? When shit is allowed to go on that 95% of Americans know is wrong and are against how fucked up have we become?

All because some 19th century legislators used vernacular of the time the current population can't understand even if there is overwhelming evidence as to what their intentions were based on Senate deliberations leading up to the 14th.

It's mind boggling that this country and it's leaders are that fucking stupid. Again it's those illogical women voting and represented perfectly on the Supreme court sinking this country into hell. Men were meant to lead and it's perfectly clear why.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Saying it was about slavery has been the MAGA moron argument from the get-go. They also want to bring back enslaving more people, especially African-Americans, through the 13th Amendment loophole.

The US has more prisoners than any country in the world. Even more than China despite they have 4 times as many people.

Highest to Lowest - Prison population total | World Prison Brief

www.prisonstudies.org www.prisonstudies.org

As shown by Trump's Bible, the White Nationalists would like to eliminate all the amendments after the Tenth. More proof all MAGAts are evil.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Especially the 19th. The beginning of the end of sane rule of law.
 
Matt Dillon said:
This isn't over. It is grounds to deny pregnant foreigners visas to come to America, though.
Also to expedite the cancellation of visas and removal for any pregnant foreigners here.
Click to expand...
They might be able to do that. It might be the correct policy, I simply disliked the effort to run around the Constitution.

Trump should have started with that, and if it were really an emergency, he would have.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Saying it was about slavery has been the MAGA moron argument from the get-go. They also want to bring back enslaving more people, especially African-Americans, through the 13th Amendment loophole.

The US has more prisoners than any country in the world. Even more than China despite they have 4 times as many people.

Highest to Lowest - Prison population total | World Prison Brief

www.prisonstudies.org www.prisonstudies.org

As shown by Trump's Bible, the White Nationalists would like to eliminate all the amendments after the Tenth. More proof all MAGAts are evil.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Jeebus you're a moron. :palm:
"They gonn' put ya back in chains, y'all!"
Derp!
Also, China executes rapists and murderers expediently.
 
Matt Dillon said:
The highlighted is from the man who wrote the 14th Amendment. :rolleyes2:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2072320656369168404
View: https://x.com/ksorbs/status/2072320656369168404?s=20
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
That is true and always has been true, because the people he listed are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He did not list forigners who are not the families of Ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Are you unable to see the difference? Read things closely.
Click to expand...

The Founders of this Amendment and COngress itself were under ZERO illusions that this Amendment would allow for, what they saw as unfavorable migrants to be able to have their children use this Amendment as a way to gain citizenship for their children.

KNOWING THIS, they absolutely still created and ratified it, with the FULL INTENT to allow that, even though they knew the concerns they held.

THERE IS NO HONEST DEBATE OVER THIS!
 
Last edited:
AI Summary:

During the congressional debates over the 14th Amendment in May 1866, the framers explicitly discussed and accepted that its sweeping language—protecting "all persons" and establishing birthright citizenship—would extend protections to highly unpopular immigrant groups, most notably Chinese migrants and Romani people (referred to at the time as "Gypsies"). [1, 2, 3]
Opponents of the amendment vehemently argued against it precisely because it would grant civil rights and birthright citizenship to these non-white immigrant groups. The authors of the amendment openly acknowledged this outcome and insisted that the law must apply universally to everyone within U.S. borders. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The key congressional exchanges from the Congressional Globe show how clearly this was understood:

The Opposition: Warning Against "Gypsies" and the "Mongol Race"
Senator Edgar Cowan, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, led the opposition by explicitly painting a picture of states being culturally and politically "overrun" by undesirable foreign populations. He argued that states should have the right to deny them citizenship and equal standing: [1, 2, 3]

"I find no fault with the Negro. I find no fault with any race of men; but I do say that every people has a right to self-defense... Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of Mongolians of the Pacific, if they would choose to come?... To a man who can be used to make laws for us, to a man who can be used to execute laws for us, I have an objection." [1]
“I am told that there are in the Empire of China four hundred millions of people... that they are being poured in upon California, and that they may pour in until they reach fifty millions.... There is another race in Asia... the Gypsies... They wander in trespasses wheresoever they go, who have no allegiance to any society... Are these people to be made citizens of the United States?” [1]
Click to expand...

The Authors' Response: Demanding Universal Equality
The principal architects of the 14th Amendment directly answered Cowan, confirming that the amendment was intentionally drafted to include these groups, regardless of how unpopular they were.
Senator John Conness of California—the very state Cowan claimed would be "overrun"—responded by defending the inclusion of Chinese children born in America: [1, 2, 3, 4]
 
QP! said:
The Founders of this Amendment and COngress itself were under ZERO illusions that this Amendment would allow for, what they saw as unfavorable migrants to be able to have their children use this Amendment as a way to gain citizenship for their children.

KNOWING THIS, they absolutely still created and ratified it, with the FULL INTENT of allow that, even though they knew the concerns, they held.

THERE IS NO HONEST DEBATE OVER THIS!
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
FastLane said:
He was correct there too but the Justices are scared to piss the progressives off and have them pack the court.
Click to expand...


They plan to do that anyway.


Q. Have any Democrats stated publicly that they want to "pack" the USSC when they regain a Congressional majority and the presidency?
A. Yes, several prominent Democrats and Democrat-aligned figures have publicly stated or strongly signaled support for expanding ("packing") the U.S. Supreme Court if their party regains control of Congress and the presidency.

This has been discussed especially since 2020–2021 (in response to the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the resulting 6-3 conservative majority) and has been revived in 2026 amid ongoing criticisms of recent Court rulings. Proposals typically involve legislation to increase the number of justices from 9 to 13 (adding four seats), which Congress has the authority to do by statute, as the size of the Court is not fixed in the Constitution.

Key Examples​

  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and others: They introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021 (and reintroduced versions like in 2023) to expand the Court to 13 justices. Markey and Nadler held press conferences framing it as restoring "balance" or "legitimacy." Co-sponsors and supporters included Reps. Hank Johnson, Cori Bush, Adam Schiff, and others.
  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Publicly called to "Expand the Court" after Barrett's confirmation.
  • Kamala Harris: As a 2020 presidential candidate and later, she expressed openness to Court expansion ("everything is on the table"). In 2026, she floated it as part of a "no bad idea brainstorm" for Democrat reforms if they regain power, including alongside other structural changes.
  • James Carville (prominent Democrat strategist): Explicitly urged Democrats, if they win the presidency and both houses of Congress, to "on day one... expand the Supreme Court to 13. F--- it. Eat our dust," while also pushing D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood.
Other Democrats (e.g., some 2020 candidates like Pete Buttigieg) were open to it, and figures like Chuck Schumer indicated in 2020 that "everything is on the table" after a potential win.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The reason is irrelevant. Congress won't act, so as a nation we get citizens that have no relationship to the country other than happening to be in it for a short period or citizens of foreign criminals who broke our laws and happened to have a child here while they were in commission of a crime.
Click to expand...


@QP! apparently thinks those poor souls are simply "unpopular", BTW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top