msstate7
Well-known member
Aces. I find out what trump is saying these days by reading here
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
People are obsessed
acesfull86
Well-known member
We’re just supposed to ignore what the President of the United States says. It’s insane.
Obsessed
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
TDS man. Better get some help.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
What's weird about this is that it's in the constitution that states decide election laws.
IIRC most of these laws have to do with mail that was post marked (aka received by the mail) on or before election day. Which means they cast their vote before election day ended.
I would wager a guess this doesn't lead to any major changes in election results and with things like runoffs, etc. many elections aren't decided on election day.
This seems like to me a republican move to try and kill early voting. But that's my conspiracy theory.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I would need more to understand the ruling but I dont see how you can support conversion torture. It is literally the exact opposite of therapy. I can understand for gender identity but I can easily see that misused. My understanding is this rulings legalizes conversion torture to turn a child bi, gay, or trans. I doubt you support that. I dont understand how a child can be gay until they actually have sex. Until then we are just guessing. How do you think this "therapy" works? Its not just talking to them. Its depriving them of food, forced exercise until they drop, physical assaults, and psychological abuse. If thats fine to do to a child at a conversion place then it shoupd be legal for parents to do it. The least we can do is have some consistency.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Polymarket odds for SCOTUS ruling against Trump on birthright citizenship case went from ~67% this morning to ~94% at the moment. Guess oral arguments are going great!
I always found their legal theory to be a bit silly, even though I kind of see the merit of it as a policy proposal. I doubt lawmakers in the 19th century envisioned the amount of anchor babies and other children of non-residents to ever reach such a high number, but they didn’t write the amendment in a way that seems to leave any wiggle room to do an end-around on its text in this way.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Unfortunately, I think Trump will lose 7-2 here but I do think in the following decades there will be a court that will overturn this nonsense.
Even those who wrote the 14th said at the time that the amendment only covered freed slaves, not illegal aliens. Why are we throwing out original intent here?
Seriously, do people really believe that the writers of the amendment thought it would be a good idea to let illegals dump their kids here and be American citizens? Really?
Before people mention the U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark case the Asian child's parents were not illegals but actual legal residents.
Even those who wrote the 14th said at the time that the amendment only covered freed slaves, not illegal aliens. Why are we throwing out original intent here?
Seriously, do people really believe that the writers of the amendment thought it would be a good idea to let illegals dump their kids here and be American citizens? Really?
Before people mention the U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark case the Asian child's parents were not illegals but actual legal residents.
Tapate50
Well-known member
This wasnt far off she’s already embarrassed herself immensely on this matter
Another writer of the 14th says the same thing as Howard
"Representative John Bingham, a primary architect of the Fourteenth Amendment, argued that birthright citizenship required parents to be domiciled or resident within the United States, not merely present. He aimed to exclude children born to parents owing foreign allegiance, emphasizing that citizenship required complete jurisdiction over the parents.
"Representative John Bingham, a primary architect of the Fourteenth Amendment, argued that birthright citizenship required parents to be domiciled or resident within the United States, not merely present. He aimed to exclude children born to parents owing foreign allegiance, emphasizing that citizenship required complete jurisdiction over the parents.