Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
It’s a question that has nothing to do with the topic.
But for kicks and giggles, count me aligned with borg on it.
I’d say that Roberts and Barrett are probably the most correct, especially since they both crossed ‘party lines’ (yes, the SC is supposed to be nonpartisan officially but….) and understood that the Constitution wasn’t overly vague in its wording.
You made this statement earlier:
“There are as many constitutional scholars that interpret it one way as there is another.”
Where’s your source for that assertion? It’s been in effect for almost 160 years, surely if what you say is true then it would have been in many precedent rulings by now, wouldn’t it?
Look, none of us have to like the current wording of the amendment and its effects today. But when we support ignoring the Constitution on matters that we don’t ‘like’, it takes us further and further away from what we need to become.
So you are saying the SC ruling was unanimous? No dissenting opinion? Read what the others said. Listen to Mark Levin’s opinion. I know, you’ll say Levin is a Clown.
There are legal opinions both ways on the interpretation. Do you really think the founders would be ok with the birth tourism going on by countries that are our enemy?
And Roberts and ACB are liberal rhinos for the most part. Trump made a mistake nominating ACB
Also, in my original post I quoted Lumpy’s post where he was defending illegal immigration because coming here legally was too expensive and drawn out. He wasn’t concerned about the constitutionality.
My question to him was to find out how far he was willing to go to support birthright citizenship, as he seems to do.
Gworm is on Fire!🔥👊🏻
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
lol he did the thing where he says "you don't understand me" when someone counters his stupid point.
You have to be seriously low IQ to think that the United States has been getting the 14th amendment wrong from the time it was ratified in 1868 until today.
Unfortunately all castles crumble eventually
Disagreeing regarding the meaning of a phrase hardly indicates a low IQ.
Your analogy is flawed. A better question would be this: If a pregnant woman not related to you or your family broke into your house and delivered the baby while inside, is that baby a member of your household or family?
What you are saying is that the interpretation of the amendment that everyone agreed to since July 28th 1868 is wrong and your different interpretation is correct. You gotta have a better case to undo that than what is being peddled.
Think about it
😁
Do you know for a fact that the founders in 1868 meant for it to mean that someone should be able to come to our country illegally and have a baby and be entitled to citizenship?
Maybe Your bubble interpretation isn’t making any sense? It’s not my house. It’s not your house. Its Americas constitutional right.
I dont know but maybe Supreme Court justices understand the meaning of the English language as it was written better than you?
Well, there are a lot of folks smarter than the both of us combined with different views.
I’m smart enough to understand that.
And I also can see that you haven’t had the testicular fortitude to answer my question, big guy.
And while I have an extra minute, you wrote
“dont know but maybe Supreme Court justices understand the meaning of the English language as it was written better than you?”
You do understand that it wasn’t a unanimous vote don’t you. And the ones that voted your way include the woman who is so stupid she can’t define what a woman is….
I’ll stick to my side any day.
For one thing, there was no such thing as crossing our border illegally in 1868. Anybody could cross the border until they passed a law banning Chinese entry in the 1870's. It wasn't until the 1920's that they made unauthorized border crossing by anybody illegal. So the legislators who debated the 14th amendment never considered the aspect you are referring to. It was neither argued for or against.
I grew up on the New Mexico and Texas border. I saw a lot of migrants coming to work and other coming to stay. I lived in El Paso for a year after college and also spent a fair amount of time across the border in Juarez to buy cheap booze and shit. Saw a lot of poverty. One thing that really hit me though was later I moved to Austin and worked for a medical malpractice insurance company, and it was wild how much delivery doctors had to pay for their insurance in El Paso and other bordering cities due to mothers coming across the border and giving birth. There was such a high rate birth defects and other issues due to malnutrition and poor prenatal care. And the illegals would sue the hospitals and doctors when the birth had terrible issues. That was a whole side of an equation I had never considered.
Pit Row
Ok so according to that reasoning, since chattel slavery was legal in what is now the US for 246 years, the people who wanted to abolish it were wrong and of low IQ. If your quoted statement is true, what I typed above must also be true.
Him or Apple. 🤣
This makes the point that it is open to interpretation.
“Everyone who disagrees with me must be stupid, but I am smart”
Am I summarizing your argument correctly?
One is granting people more rights, one is granting them less rights. You are saying that granting people more rights is a mistake. Supporting chattel slavery is being in favor of having a state sanctioned underclass, who are people without country, exactly what the 13th amendment was written to prevent.
That's how it's worked from the day it started.
The logic for overturning the precedent is peddled by those dumb enough to buy it, and those dumb enough to sell it.
This is a complete non sequitur. I asked a pretty straightforward question.
Wow, you have a great memory!
Correction.
One is granting rights to non-citizens while taking away from the citizens who are paying the bill.
The other is trying to stop that from happening.
Edit:
Only a low IQ person would have trouble seeing that.
No
I don't know why you expect me to take you seriously when you keep saying over and over you have an end and are looking for a means.
Post a reply to: If you are born here you are ….