XC.Morrison Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 45 minutes ago, Cold War said: Could be. You think Trump tends to get confused about timelines & what not? I think it’s fair to say Donald gets timelines, etc mixed up a bit. It’s also funny that he thinks he looks like Elvis - trying so hard to look cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 oh the horror........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted February 12, 2019 Gold Member Share Posted February 12, 2019 29 minutes ago, oleroule said: no such thing. And the 14th Amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Kivalo said: And the 14th Amendment? it's between the 13th and 15th. do some serious research (not just talking points) on it and where 'anchor babies' came from, you'll learn. history....live it, learn it, love it. Edited February 12, 2019 by oleroule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold War Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 26 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: I think it’s fair to say Donald gets timelines, etc mixed up a bit. It’s also funny that he thinks he looks like Elvis - trying so hard to look cool. He’s not even as cool as fat jump suit wearing Elvis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, Kivalo said: And the 14th Amendment? This is a "lost in the weeds" argument from the left. The 14th does not apply to persons born illegally here (of illegal immigrants). It was written to protect slaves that were born here and their residing state still denying them citizenship after slavery was abolished.. Not so foreigners can come here, drop flesh and have us be responsible for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted February 12, 2019 Gold Member Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 minute ago, oleroule said: it's between the 13th and 15th. do some serious research (not just talking points) on it, you'll learn. history....live it, learn it, love it. I will bet anything I know more of US History than you do by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted February 12, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 12, 2019 Fucking great...now we have to listen F. Lee Ole Drools blather about this nonsense for the next two years....SMH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, Kivalo said: I will bet anything I know more of US History than you do by far. cool story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 hour ago, oleroule said: derp derp derp derp Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. how is this relevant to citizenship? The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, however, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in the above case, creating precedent. You’re wrong, and fucking stupid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted February 12, 2019 Gold Member Share Posted February 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, however, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in the above case, creating precedent. You’re wrong, and fucking stupid. Shhh stop that! Learn history and stop believing talking points! The issue may not be fully adjudicated but you're spot on, precedent has been established and a direction set. Its not difficult to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, however, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in the above case, creating precedent. You’re wrong, and fucking stupid. what case? link? get it right this time since you already posted a bogus comment trying to quote article II, section 1, clause 4. natural law, not british common law, is what was the prevailing principle for determining natural citizenship. who your parents owe allegiance to at the time of your birth determines whether or not you are a natural-born citizen. the citizenship is inherited from your father, not bestowed by the government. this is also why the 14th amendment is incorrectly applied by most. concerning the supreme court, they make blatant mistakes...see korematsu v. united states, dred scott v. sandford, or national federation of Independent business v. sebelius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted February 13, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 13, 2019 Good god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 1 minute ago, oleroule said: what case? link? get it right this time since you already posted a bogus comment trying to quote article II, section 1, clause 4. natural law, not british common law, is what was the prevailing principle for determining natural citizenship. who your parents owe allegiance to at the time of your birth determines whether or not you are a natural-born citizen. the citizenship is inherited from your father, not bestowed by the government. this is also why the 14th amendment is incorrectly applied by most. concerning the supreme court, they make blatant mistakes...see korematsu v. united states, dred scott v. sandford, or national federation of Independent business v. sebelius. Really bought into the birther narrative hook, line, and sinker eh? Why would I debate anyone that is so obviously retarded that they can’t even interpret Supreme Court precedent when it hits them in the face? It was Clause V that they had their error on. The Constitution has a vague description of what natural born citizen means. That is why the Supreme Court deferred to the commonly accepted definition of the term, at the time, as outlined by British law. You can feel free to push this further and show that you’re a 73er birther doober incapable of an evidential take on the subject, or you can do as I have done and quote mother fucking precedent set forth by the highest court in the country. Your play... Derp derp derp, as stated earlier will most certainly apply to whatever you post next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Ole rule is correct on this topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 10 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said: Ole rule is correct on this topic Derp derp derp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Derp derp derp That’s you yup 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 side note me and my wife just walked out of Caesars that night and a fuck load of cops had lights blazing heading down the street so we walked that way . could see them all stopped . by the time we got there they had road and walk closed . no one in the crowed knew what had gone down at that point . then shortly it went around that suge was dead in the ambiance. could not see shit so we turned around by the time we got to end of street every one was talking about tupac in the car . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted February 13, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 13, 2019 Can we start counting her lies too? Maybe she really meant Digital Underground Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted February 13, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Can we start counting her lies too? Maybe she really meant Digital Underground Humpty Dance bitches!!!!!!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 11 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Really bought into the birther narrative hook, line, and sinker eh? Why would I debate anyone that is so obviously retarded that they can’t even interpret Supreme Court precedent when it hits them in the face? It was Clause V that they had their error on. The Constitution has a vague description of what natural born citizen means. That is why the Supreme Court deferred to the commonly accepted definition of the term, at the time, as outlined by British law. You can feel free to push this further and show that you’re a 73er birther doober incapable of an evidential take on the subject, or you can do as I have done and quote mother fucking precedent set forth by the highest court in the country. Your play... Derp derp derp, as stated earlier will most certainly apply to whatever you post next. aren't you the guy here that got his edumacation from uw at madison? 1. now your anger and posts make sense. 2. ask for your money back 3. derp derp derp derpity derp derp.....derp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 54 minutes ago, oleroule said: aren't you the guy here that got his edumacation from uw at madison? 1. now your anger and posts make sense. 2. ask for your money back 3. derp derp derp derpity derp derp.....derp So what I read here is you have nothing and choose not to debate with evidence on your own viewpoint; rather, you would like to just bury your head in the asshole of the birther narrative and take it as fact becuase it fits your partisan bubble. Noted. You’re fucking stupid. Am I supposed to be insulted that I received multiple degrees from a top university and have a graduate degree on the way? I’m still a conservative. Your problem with me is I’m not a republican who gets spoon fed bullshit and doesn’t work in facts, science, or common sense. A once great party of ideological thinkers that no longer appreciates intelligence or education. No wonder anyone outside of hilljack fucktards and people worried about their wealth getting stolen are leaving the party by the droves... Oh and it wasn’t my money, it was your money, tax payer. GI Bill paid for my school. So thanks! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franks pond Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 13, 2019 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, oleroule said: it's between the 13th and 15th. do some serious research (not just talking points) on it and where 'anchor babies' came from, you'll learn. history....live it, learn it, love it. The birth tourism is a joke and by the below ruling should not give them citizenship. Nor should someone crossing the border legally or illegally and going to the hospital to have a baby. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power. Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of undocumented immigrants are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.[25] According to PolitFact, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive food vouchers through the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.[25] Edited February 13, 2019 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 1 hour ago, oleroule said: aren't you the guy here that got his edumacation from uw at madison? 1. now your anger and posts make sense. 2. ask for your money back 3. derp derp derp derpity derp derp.....derp Did you graduate Magna Dum Loudy from Trump University? I think there was a settlement cause Trump did a bad there and you should be able to recoup some of your losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.