The only problem with not maintaining the 14th extension of the bill of rights is that the states have been absolutely cucked by the federal government, because citizens are taxed so highly by the feds through things like income tax (dubious legality), so states and local governments are completely dependent on the federal government to perform the basic functions like road maintenance and education. The drinking age is universally 21 only because Reagan was able to strongarm the states with the threat of withdrawing interstate upkeep subsidies.
I would also recommend reading the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on "American Law". It emphasized how the civil war changed the relationship between the Fed and the States.
Importantly, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to those "born in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof." And often negkected clause. Jurisdiction was a technical term for the domain of the master, but it also relates to sovereign issues, and foreign diplomats are unambiguously outside US jurisdiction.
Still, one gets the sense that that either legals or illegals shouldn't be considered subject. Either because they reject american law and custom in favor of their own embassy (legal) or because they disobeyed the laws of both their government and american law by coming here (illegal). It seems like a "pick one" option on the embassy level.
Regarding the intent of the 14th amendment, it seems to reject the concept of maintaining a hereditary slave class, and illegals hereditarily subject to deportation seem to meet that criterion. Simply because of the fait accompli of their physical presence in the country, it's better to deport them than to leave them in limbo, if one wants to maintain respect for american immigration law, and not diluting the rights of citizenship. But to legalize their anchor babies is a constutional matter, not so much because it's wrong to revoke their citizenship as it is that their limbo status is offensive to the status of citizenship itself.
The 14th amendment addressed issues of "state citizenship" by abolishing the category, but Dorr's rebellion demonstrated that it's a threat to our very form of government if the rights of the citizen are not maintained with integrity. Though the rights englishmen and our associated common law tradition is even more fundamental than that, and needs to be protected in fact as well as in theory through the right executuon of immigration law.
The 14th amendment only gives citizenship to the babies that are born here, not to their parents. Those babies did not enter the country illegally nor could make such decision by themselves.
Cases like Brown, Loving, possibly even Obergefell could be justified on the basis of the sense-reference distinction, if one considers original sense (meaning) to be binding but not original reference (the object/thing that the meaning refers to).
Breasts image to start it off. Great shit, “bub”
I think you should put boob breaks in every future substack
Hmmm
The only problem with not maintaining the 14th extension of the bill of rights is that the states have been absolutely cucked by the federal government, because citizens are taxed so highly by the feds through things like income tax (dubious legality), so states and local governments are completely dependent on the federal government to perform the basic functions like road maintenance and education. The drinking age is universally 21 only because Reagan was able to strongarm the states with the threat of withdrawing interstate upkeep subsidies.
I feel like an executive could use similar actions to try to make states implement unconstitutional regulations for the federal govt.
That is le a good point man. That is a le very good point
What about the thin middle part in her boobs? You ever think of that?
Oi oi oi... Baka... *lion noises*
I would also recommend reading the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on "American Law". It emphasized how the civil war changed the relationship between the Fed and the States.
Importantly, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to those "born in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof." And often negkected clause. Jurisdiction was a technical term for the domain of the master, but it also relates to sovereign issues, and foreign diplomats are unambiguously outside US jurisdiction.
Still, one gets the sense that that either legals or illegals shouldn't be considered subject. Either because they reject american law and custom in favor of their own embassy (legal) or because they disobeyed the laws of both their government and american law by coming here (illegal). It seems like a "pick one" option on the embassy level.
Regarding the intent of the 14th amendment, it seems to reject the concept of maintaining a hereditary slave class, and illegals hereditarily subject to deportation seem to meet that criterion. Simply because of the fait accompli of their physical presence in the country, it's better to deport them than to leave them in limbo, if one wants to maintain respect for american immigration law, and not diluting the rights of citizenship. But to legalize their anchor babies is a constutional matter, not so much because it's wrong to revoke their citizenship as it is that their limbo status is offensive to the status of citizenship itself.
The 14th amendment addressed issues of "state citizenship" by abolishing the category, but Dorr's rebellion demonstrated that it's a threat to our very form of government if the rights of the citizen are not maintained with integrity. Though the rights englishmen and our associated common law tradition is even more fundamental than that, and needs to be protected in fact as well as in theory through the right executuon of immigration law.
The 14th amendment only gives citizenship to the babies that are born here, not to their parents. Those babies did not enter the country illegally nor could make such decision by themselves.
It doesn't give citizenship to their parents but it gives them a path to virtually permanent residency
She may be norwooding.......but Im YESwooding.🌝
Those titties ain’t retarded
Read this book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_by_Judiciary#:~:text=Government%20by%20Judiciary%20is%20a,framers%20of%20this%20Amendment%20and
But also read about the sense-reference distinction here:
https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712&context=lj
Cases like Brown, Loving, possibly even Obergefell could be justified on the basis of the sense-reference distinction, if one considers original sense (meaning) to be binding but not original reference (the object/thing that the meaning refers to).
I’ll have to look into that…
Trash
I’m lost - what’s the photo got to do with the 14th amendment
Click bait is getting mighty boring
I used that picture because she had large and shapely breasts. Is this a crime?
Would be a pleasure to block trash who can’t get visibility without using sex, like some woman. lol
Deeply dismayed there aren’t many statues of Thaddeus Stevens to dynamite #WWW
Testosterone boost before a read👍 I like your thinking
Justice Earl Warren. Not the same as the Warren Commission by any chance? /s
This is fucking stupid