>>538143221
Jurisprudence is rule by the rabbis. It works the same way
>you can make any new interpretation you want, just don't go against the legitimacy of ANY of the old ones.

>>538143315
What this thread proves is, regardless of which non-sequitur you attempt, The Supreme Court factually ruled wrong in such an indefensibly negligent way, that their rulings can no longer be considered legitimate as they are an unfit judicial body to carry out the most basic tasks of their station.

File: jews immigration and the (...).jpg (324 KB, 1025x953)

324 KB JPG

All part of the plan. Bit-by-bit (((they))) erode us all to useless nubs.

>this amendment doesn't apply to children of ambassadors
Ok, and it doesn't. What's your point?

>>538143221
Wow so you're saying judges don't actually give a shit about original intent and interpret laws based off personal political beliefs?

File: 1759447738802225.png (646 KB, 1000x667)

646 KB PNG

>>538143221

>>538144339
this would be better with banantrump

>>538144297
see >>538144133 for what i'm saying.

>>538143221
if you don't literally spell things out without any room for interpretation the communists will always run with it.
>>538144133
essentially. if you read for example, ACB's line of reasoning, it completely misuses everything from jus soli to the park decision, cherry picking anything she liked and totally forgetting everything else that "suprise!" crushed her argument. Thomas pointed it out, and they didn't care.

>>538144925
>essentially. if you read for example, ACB's line of reasoning, it completely misuses everything from jus soli to the park decision, cherry picking anything she liked and totally forgetting everything else
link?

>>538145017
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf

>According to the Court, Sir Edward Coke’s separate opinion in
Calvin’s Case established the “common law” principle called
“jus soli,” pursuant to which people owed perpetual feudal
allegiance to the King of England if they were “‘born within
the dominions’” that he owned. Ante, at 3–4. This principle
applied to all persons born on the land, not just those domiciled there. As the Court tells it, the 1608 feudal principle
as described by Coke was adopted as the law of citizenship
in America and then incorporated by reference in the Citizenship Clause. Ante, at 2–9.
The English principle was a rule of feudal servitude, not
a rule of citizenship. “[I]n England there was no such thing
as a citizen.” Hamburger, Allegiance, Birthright, and Citizenship. The English principle instead determined a person’s permanent feudal bondage to the King, which he could
not unilaterally abandon.

page 136

>>538144133
It's been this way for a long time dude. Separate but equal has always been a lie. Your country is an oligarchy ruled by 9 unelected judges who serve for life.
You should read the original Roe v Wade decision.

furthermore on page 137
>The English feudal principle “was not accepted by the
American governments.” Report of 1868, at 95. As JUSTICE
ALITO explains, the principle that birth on the soil made a
person perpetually bound to the King was premised on the
theory that the King was anointed by God to rule the people
like children. Post, at 4–5 (dissenting opinion). John Adams famously wrote that the feudal theory meant that “the
common people were held together, in herds and clans, in a
state of servile dependence on their lords” in “a state of total
ignorance of every thing divine and human.”

I'm sorry i'm posting from a pdf so it comes out wonky but thomas' dissent begins I believe shortly before in 135

page 140
The Court’s reverence for Lynch v. Clarke is not commensurate with its importance. Lynch was not a precedent of
this Court, or any federal court, or any state appellate
court, or even a court of law. Instead, it was decided by a
New York “assistant vice-chancellor” in a court of equity’s
equivalent to a trial court.

further on

Lynch also did not interpret the Citizenship Clause, a
statute using the same language as the Citizenship Clause,
or even a statute that remained in effect at the time of the
Citizenship Clause. Instead, it interpreted a New York
state law. The state law was replaced immediately after
Lynch. See 1 Sand. Ch., at 583, n. a., 620; 1845 N. Y. Laws

and

Lynch also lacked staying power. By the time of the Citizenship Clause, New York’s higher courts had all but abrogated it.

>>538144297
Judges should defer to Trump. It’s the morally correct thing to do

and finally he begins dismantling what he calls "self-defeating" because the court did not consider the entirety of their sources. As I said, they "cherry-picked":

As for the remainder of the Court’s reasoning, much of it
is self-defeating.
page 146

I can talk about a few other things but I gave the link, so feel free to peruse it. It's better to do so, because laymen and journalists routinely get it wrong.

>>538143221
Is that language in the bill?

>>538145123
Thanks for link.

>the Government and the dissent identify no source that defined allegiance at birth as being based on domicile in the period from 1776 to 1868.
>Sources from that period instead defined “allegiance by birth” just as the British did—as “the tie or duty” owed by one who is “born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”
>The principal dissent (but not the Government) at times seems to directly equate domicile and national citizenship.
>That is wrong. “It is, in fact, a general axiom of international law, that there may be domicil where there is no nationality, and nationality where there is no domicil.”
>After all, one who establishes a domicile in a new country does not automatically become a citizen thereof. (He has to be naturalized.) Nor does he automatically lose his prior citizenship. (He has to expatriate.) Thus, the principal dissent ultimately acknowledges that domicile alone was insufficient to make someone “formally” a “citizen.”

>>538145545
I'm sorry, what do the words
>is
>that
>language
>in
>the
>bill
mean? You don't define them in your post.

>>538145622
, Justice
Gray’s opinion for the Court held that the Citizenship
Clause requires “not merely” that a person born in the
United States be “subject in some respect or degree to the
jurisdiction of the United States,” but that he be “completely
subject to [the United States’] political jurisdiction” and owe
the country his “direct and immediate allegiance.” Id., at
102 (emphasis added). For that reason, John Elk, despite
being “born within the territorial limits of the United
States,” did not have a valid claim to citizenship by birth
because he had been born on a reservation to tribal Indians.
Ibid. Indian tribes, the opinion explained, “were alien
Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 23
ALITO, J., dissenting
nations,” and their members “owed immediate allegiance to
the several tribes.” Id., at 99. Although Elk had “voluntarily separat[ed] himself from his tribe and tak[en] up his residence” among the general public, he was born “owing immediate allegiance” to the tribe, and as a result, was not
entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id., at 99, 102.
That was the state of the Court’s case law until Wong Kim
Ark turned it in a different direction. That case provides
the strongest support for today’s decision, but its holding is
not controlling, and I would not allow the meaning of American citizenship to be forever dictated by the opinion’s dubious dicta. Wong Kim Ark cautioned against assigning too
much weight to dicta, 169 U. S., at 679, and it is appropriate
to apply that same advice to the opinion in Wong Kim Ark
itself.

Alito dissenting

>>538144925
>if you don't literally spell things out
I've always lamented how poorly worded The Bill of Rights is, in general.
If I had written it, I'd have been a bit more clear in my meaning:
>try to silence me? get shot.
>touch my guns? get shot.
>try to live in my house? get shot.
>put your hands on my stuff? get shot.
>make shit up? get shot.
>won't listen? get shot.
>try tyranny? get shot.
>go overboard? get shot.
>lord over me? get shot.
>overstep your bounds? get shot.

>>538143221
If he wanted that to be the intent of the amendment he should have added it to the amendment

I'm only taking bits and pieces but I'll possibly have a write-up by this weekend, but I see a few things in Alito and Thomas' dissents in that the court very narrowly skipped over glaringly obvious counters to their own arguments in their own case law.
>>538145950
the problem with strict writing is that it is easier to find loopholes and restrictions sometimes, but in making it too vague we run the risk of making it unintelligable as well.

>>538145983
>find loopholes
get shot.

>>538144133
You‘re a clown country, a literal monkey on fentanly with a gun. What do you expect? Some decency, respect or honor? These are all words you can talk as american, but you fail the walk.

>>538146039
Who decides what’s a loophole and what’s not?

>>538145795
Oh, you're OP. You're actually, unironically trying to respond to my point by deflecting like that. Ok.

I'm the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment, can you quote a single line which excludes foreigners and aliens? Does Howard's lone testimony as the drafter of the bill override what all the states who ratified the 14th Amendment believed when they ratified it? I don't think you can address this question directly and in good faith.

>>538146144
>More words about words not in the text of your words.

>>538146122
>question my interpretation?
get shot.
It's a simple system of justice.

>>538146144
it was a given that practically every state was concerned about it and the debate as well as is "single line" was a lot more robust. It was also pretty much well defined even before the Ark case, which itself has been misconstrued into the popular thinking of today. if you read the case you'll see this. it was by no means "just one sentence" and whether one sentence or five hundred doesn't matter. it was made painfully clear to all involved and was treated as such afterwards.

File: XJHXy.qR4e-small-INSOMNIA(...).jpg (121 KB, 860x484)

121 KB JPG

>>538143221

US Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

1790 Naturalization Act: The First Congress limited naturalization to “any alien being a free White person.”

The U.S. Supreme Court relied heavily on language of 1790 Naturalization Act in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), ruling that Asian Indians (despite being classified as "Caucasian") were not White and were ineligible for naturalization.

Devon Stack BLACKPILLED INSOMNIA Stream White Supremes:
https://rumble.com/v6vgik1-insomnia-stream-white-supremes.html

>>538146167
Yeah, you can't answer in good faith at all.

Point being, yes, Howard's thoughts on the amendment are valid and relevant. He's one of the men who wrote it. But he's not the sole datum. He's not even the sole author, right?

Most importantly, he's not each of the states which voted to ratify it. By what grounds do you elevate the design of one single man above everyone who actually voted for the thing in the capacity in which it was presented for votes?

You can't reconcile this question.

>the constitution should be interpreted by the intent of the framers
>unless it contradicts Trump
>or nerfs the second amendment
>or deprives the executive branch of more power (but only so long as Trump is in charge)
You guys crack me up.

>>538146213
>it was a given
You presuppose it, yes, because it's hard to defend without assuming the conclusion ex nihilo. In reality, you actually have to reckon with what the text which was ratified actually says.

>>538146270
>you can't reconcile this question
I already have, you just don't realize it because you haven't gone and looked up every word in the 14th.

File: george washingtonius.jpg (60 KB, 846x818)

60 KB JPG

>>538146234
>

>>538146314
>presuppose
wrong. it is historically documented and there were numerous cases as to the fact. You're going to have to read it yourself because it's becoming impossible to jump through hundreds of pages of a pdf this frequently. i'm not sure what argument you're trying to make but you should read those cases. secondly no the fourteenth does not allow nor was ever intended to allow birth tourism type citizenship.it's been made painfully clear and the argument I make is in line with Alito and Thomas' dissents.

>>538146392
he's playing gotcha games with an empty magazine
>get shot
My system offers the speediest of trials.

anyways, i have to go for the time being. the entire text has been linked further up.

>>538146392
>it is historically documented and there were numerous cases as to the fact
What did the word "jurisdiction" mean in the mid 19th century, according to legal dictionaries?

>>538146481
that is also described, please read the fucking thing, i have to leave.

File: 1678338705489578.jpg (219 KB, 773x960)

219 KB JPG

>>538143221
UPSTANDING WHITE CITIZENS OF GOOD CHARACTER ONLY

>>538146144
>I'm the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment, can you quote a single line which excludes foreigners and aliens?
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

File: Screenshot_20260630-235439.png (1.58 MB, 720x1045)

1.58 MB PNG

>>538146234

fait accompli

>>538146568
Line to exclude natives and diplomats

>>538144785
seething kremlin kike
get off the vpn, nigger

>>538146751
And illegal aliens >>538143221

File: every time.jpg (55 KB, 640x436)

55 KB JPG

>>538146581

>>538146779
what? lmao. the meme would be more relevant if it used a face more relevant to the topic. what the hell is wrong with you?

File: jewish nationalism comes (...).jpg (351 KB, 1488x1114)

351 KB JPG

>>538143221
Almost all of the justices that ruled for unrestricted birthright citizenship knew this (I seriously question Jackson or Sotamayor's intellectual ability to understand much of anything) They voted against the intent out of political motivation (Kegan was double dipping as always because lol kike on the supreme court) Most of them knew and understood and were using their appointed power to ignore and redefine it into what they wanted it to mean. The kikes are hellbent on exterminating down to the memory their closest ethnic adversary Amalek (that's us) and making a global india in more ways than one starting with their golden calf America and ending the migration ethnic replacement would be an unexpectable wrench in that plan.

>>538146796
I don’t think they granted immunity from American jurisdiction? once again what he says in a quote isn’t included in the amendment so it doesn’t prove much besides you can’t look up what makes someone under US jurisdiction

>>538146507
The word jurisdiction has been pretty stable since the 1800s. It means, essentially, the combination of its latinate components say it should: the set of things over which the law can dictate outcomes. It is the reach of the law.

In order to restrict birthright citizenship, you would have to invent a new (and, critically, narrowly carved out) definition of jurisdiction. The letter of the law can mean nothing other than birthright citizenship.

The "birth tourism" thing is a total red herring, for the record. This decision wasn't about rich people from other countries flying to the US so their kids can get food stamps, or whatever. The actual context of this debate is whether or not the children of all illegal immigrants are Americans. By the letter of the law, they obviously are.

Howard, one of a handful of the bills authors, may have disagreed. Unfortunately for you, the will of the author is not binding. Obviously, the law itself has the power in our country, not the people who write it. When they submit it for ratification, the power is entirely in the hands of the ratifying bodies. That's just basic logic, right?

The law says what it does. 6-3 ruling agrees. Maybe you're wrong. Have you considered that possibility?

This is a lot of abstract talk when it's a simple matter of demography and physical existence.

Also, this isn't even the most significant ruling on that day. The court also expanded the power of money in politics, so while you're making s*y faces and wailing about your white ethnonationalism, scotus is giving even more power to rich people and the political duopoly.

Despite the fact that our system was designed such that all three branches were supposed to be held in tension, each jealously guarding their powers against the other branches, Kavanaugh in his opinion wrote that political parties are insufficiently powerful.

Let that sink in. Looking at the total and complete dominance of two massive, supra-governmental, private organizations facilitating collusion between at least two of the branches of government, and said they're insufficiently powerful.

It's time to grow up and get serious about what's actually fucking us over.

File: Screenshot_20260701-011926.png (608 KB, 720x575)

608 KB PNG

I wuz born here holmes

>>538147274
>I don’t think they granted immunity from American jurisdiction?
You need to remember that the amendment was written in the context of language used in the 1800s. Jurisdiction doesn't just mean subject to Government laws in this context, but subject to ALL Government laws. Illegal aliens are in the country illegally, cannot be called upon by the draft, in many cases do not pay income tax, etc. etc.

Just because they can be called before a judge and given a criminal sentence if they commit a crime is not sufficient to say they are subject to the jursidiction of the state in this context.

This is why the people who wrote the amendment itself *clarified* this at it's passing. Do you think if you were in America illegally in the 1800s that you couldn't go to prison if you killed someone? The fact remains that the people who voted to ratify the amendment *would NOT have done so* had they thought they were giving citizenship to any child born in the United States even if the parents were visitors or worse, aliens.

This is also part of the trend by which left wing judicial activists have abused the 14th amendment to justify absolutely agenda they wish to see enacted. When the court legalised gay marriage last decade, they called upon the 14th to justify their decision. Do you truly believe a bunch of legislators in the 1800s intended to legalise gay marriage when they passed the 14th? The same could be said for birthright citizenship as the court has interpreted it.

>>538147480
>In order to restrict birthright citizenship, you would have to invent a new (and, critically, narrowly carved out) definition of jurisdiction.
It is you who have invented a new definition. Senator Howard gives us his definition in his speech to congress when he passed the amendment in the 1800s.
>>538147804
>Also, this isn't even the most significant ruling on that day.
This is the most significant ruling in a generation. If it is not overturned in the coming decades, future historians will look back at this ruling as what led to the death of the American republic.
> scotus is giving even more power to rich people and the political duopoly.
Oh you're just a retarded commie, LMAO
M-MUH MONEY IN POLITICS M-MUH RICH PEOPLE EVIL kill yourself