09 HOURS, 04 MINUTES, 18 SECONDS

i doubt that's how the supreme court will see it
i bet they're going to take a very long time to do anything
do you doubt that

SCOTUS forsakes their oaths and refuse to uphold the US Constitution which I doubt they will do.

amy's bitch ass always sides with muh feelings, she yet to side with reason.

DEPORT THEM NOW

A ruling for this case has already been scheduled for Late June or Early July but like I said it doesn't matter because the end result is already predetermined due to the fact that the opposition has NO ARGUMENTS.

It's like waiting to hear who wins on election night when the candidate is running unopposed.

I'm still so fucking mad he was dumb enough to put a woman on the SC. We're going to be dealing with this stupid cunt for the next 30 years.
Thank God he's learned some lessons for 47.

here's an argument

14th amendment says people born here and subject to jurisdiction are citizens

since you can't really argue that children of illegals born here weren't actually born here then you can only argue that they're somehow not subject to jurisdiction
how do you do that

subject to the jurisdiction

that's the thing, they aren't.

how aren't they though
if they commit a crime they can be punished
they're required to pay taxes
they don't have diplomatic immunity
they may not even exist in any records outside of america
so what's the bar

what's the bar?

"The Bar" was set by SCOTUS with Wong Kim Ark (1898) this is why I say the Trump Administrations arguments are so strong because not only do they have the Author of Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment as their premise they also have Wong Kim Ark which is SCOTUS precedent which has NOT as of yet been overturned.

In The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) it is stated in the majority SCOTUS ruling that (emphasis mine):

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, IN THE ALLEGIANCE AND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY, including all children here born of RESIDENT ALIENS, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns and their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes OWING DIRECT ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES.

For a person born within the territory of the United States to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it appears from the above passage that the person MUST at birth owe a sufficiently direct duty of allegiance to the sovereign in return for the sovereigns reciprocal obligation to protection. The child of members of an Indian tribe who owe direct allegiance to their tribe does NOT qualify, although clearly born within the territory of the United States.

NOR DO THE CHILDREN OF ALIENS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

that case seems to work best for a counter argument
that guy was considered a citizen because he was born here
and why would your parents committing a crime mean you aren't a citizen

that guy was considered a citizen because he was born here

Incorrect, he was considered a citizen because he was born here to parents who were both LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS and in the majority opinion they go to great lengths to mention the word PERMANENT RESIDENT and PERMANENT RESIDENCY and DOMICILE over and over again.

Do you know what a Permanent Resident Card is?

why should that matter since it's not in the constitution

I don't know if you are aware of this but SCOTUS majority opinions on constitutional questions set legal precedent. Do you know what legal precedent is?

Personally, i just don't understand what they gain from this. All this does is cuck the general population even further, the boots don't stop stomping your skull in just because they promised it wasn't your turn yet.

that isn't the argument your gonna hear retard, the arguments are about judges controlling the executive and protecting niggers gov workers, with that as the background.

well what started this whole thing in the first place
children of illegals have been considered citizens up to now

children of illegals have been considered citizens up to now

No they weren't and they never could be because that would either require a new SCOTUS ruling to overturn Wong Kim Ark or a Constitutional Amendment utilizing Article V powers.

I fully expect SCOTUS to cuck out and go "yeah you're right but it would cause too much pain so we won't change the status quo".

In oral arguments this week, the justices will primarily consider whether federal judges have the power to order these temporary pauses, known as nationwide injunctions. But the question of birthright citizenship will form the backdrop.

no memes intedned but 2 more weeks.

the injunction shit will be just as powerful as the birthright citizenship ruling.

its exhausting watching all these fucking activists judges trying to stonewall Trump. if they lose that power, we're going to unironically go Warp Speed again.

why do we even have terms like birthright citizenship and anchor babies if they've never been considered citizens
you yourself said birthright citizenship is the current status quo that will be ending
btw does this wong kim ark thing actually say anything at all about illegals

Wong Kim Ark addressed a very narrow legal question: whether a child born in the United States to lawful permanent residents of Chinese descent was entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case did not, despite the conventional wisdom over decades, reach the question of whether children born to parents illegally in the United States were entitled to citizenship under the amendment.

In other words, it did not answer whether those not subject to the political jurisdiction thereof were entitled to birthright citizenship. The court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, concluding that the children of lawful permanent residents who are “domiciled” in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of whether children born to individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States qualify for birthright citizenship, no matter how many jews say otherwise.

The 1898 case is available for all to read here: law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The opposition knows that the facts and the constitution support my arguments this is why they DO NOT wish for the Trump Administration to present these arguments in front of SCOTUS because they KNOW they WILL LOSE.

Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of whether children born to individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States qualify for birthright citizenship

well then it's worthless isn't it
if it has nothing to do with such a situation then why bring it up

because the Trump Administration already UPHOLD precedent

Yeah, that shit is brilliant. Do we yet know the architect(s) of this particular approach? It's obviously somebody knows fucking federal law inside and out. I'm betting it's also the same person (not necessarily Rubio) behind adding the cartels to the FTO list so cartels, illegal drugs, illegal migration, et al ALL more or less can be made to fall under 9/11 anti-terror laws without much (if any) shoehorning.

bill gates is the ali express of child trafficking

Please try to keep up.
There is NO RULING by SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says as well.

Thus precedent as it stands today is that

1: Constitution says that children of illegals do NOT have citizenship.

2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark says that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.

3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Also SCOTUS rulings are constitutional questions and interpreations are RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the power to alter the US Constitution or to "make laws" which they do not. Only through the utilization of Article V in the US constitution can Amend the US constitution and only Congress has the power to write, vote on, federal laws which are ultimately signed into law by the President of the United States.

well what exactly does jurisdiction mean
how can it be that criminals aren't subject to jurisdiction when it's exactly that that defines them as criminals
furthermore how can jurisdiction be genetic

The actual argument is more than 50 years old, that is how long it has taken to get this argument heard in front of SCOTUS for very obvious reasons because it is enormously powerful and will forever shape the demographics of the United States.

see here

useful and interesting, thank you

she's still got TDS. I had it at one time, got over it, and I hope she does too