After that transgender ruling a few days ago, nothing needs a new amendment anymore. You just need five justices that will make up a meaning for an existing amendment.
It's been discussed on here that the Constitution does not establish birthright citizenship. It's just a thing the deep state started doing without asking anyone.
There's a clause in the constitution that is clear to anyone with a brain, however it can be misread on purpose by activist judges. That's why we need to be sure.
The ORIGINAL Constitution does not establish birthright citizenship but the 14th amendment certainly does.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"
So to overturn this we need another amendment. Just like how the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol) was overturned by the 21st amendment
The key words are:
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
An illegal alien isn't. For example, they wouldn't be drafted if there was a war.
Moreover, the discussions of Founding Fathers make it clear what they meant, and a "constitutionalist" judge is meant to interpret the constitution as what it was trying to say at the time.
Truly, only a left wing activist could interpret the words you quoted as "anyone can come in here illegally, shit a child, and have the right to stay"
Absolutely. And I think this and I'm a foreigner. If I ever come live in America I don't think I should be entitled to vote.
But I can still campaign for Trump and try to convince others.
We need to ensure it's someone who will vote to remove birthright citizenship.
After that transgender ruling a few days ago, nothing needs a new amendment anymore. You just need five justices that will make up a meaning for an existing amendment.
Bingo. One re-interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction of" and we win.
Winner winner chicken tendie dinner.
Politics is unfortunately fought in the courts.
Like the word "the" now meaning "not the."
It's been discussed on here that the Constitution does not establish birthright citizenship. It's just a thing the deep state started doing without asking anyone.
There's a clause in the constitution that is clear to anyone with a brain, however it can be misread on purpose by activist judges. That's why we need to be sure.
The ORIGINAL Constitution does not establish birthright citizenship but the 14th amendment certainly does.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"
So to overturn this we need another amendment. Just like how the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol) was overturned by the 21st amendment
The key words are: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
An illegal alien isn't. For example, they wouldn't be drafted if there was a war.
Moreover, the discussions of Founding Fathers make it clear what they meant, and a "constitutionalist" judge is meant to interpret the constitution as what it was trying to say at the time.
Truly, only a left wing activist could interpret the words you quoted as "anyone can come in here illegally, shit a child, and have the right to stay"
How would gaining citizenship work without birthright citizenship?
Like it works in Italy and many other countries. By blood. It's called jus sanguinis.
I would also remove any path to citizenship: marriage, green card, etc. Citizenship by blood only.
This way you can even get legal immigrants, but they won't colonize the country because they won't be able to vote.
Absolutely. And I think this and I'm a foreigner. If I ever come live in America I don't think I should be entitled to vote. But I can still campaign for Trump and try to convince others.
Blood rights are also evil. You really need limits on "the good old boys."
Eh? The Founding Fathers did not establish birthright citizenship, in the US it's just the deep state that started doing it.