calicuz · 56-60, M
The Supreme Court doesn't have to decide anything in this matter. The Constitution is clear:
"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."
The Court is not needed, why is this even being heard? What is the opposing argument based on?
"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."
The Court is not needed, why is this even being heard? What is the opposing argument based on?
View 13 more replies »
sree251 · 41-45, M
@calicuz
The law is a recommended course of action. It can be changed or removed if society doesn't want it. There is provision for such amendments.
The Court makes rulings on the law. It is such rulings that can be challenged. Lower court rulings can be overturned by higher courts. This doesn't mean that the higher court is right and better than the lower court at reading the law. The umpire makes the call even though he is an ass. Most tennis players will tell you that.
No law is clear. This is why we have courts for deliberating on the reading of the law. If the law is as clear as you imagine, we would only need executioners and do away with lawyers and judges.
Yes, law can be challenged.
The law is a recommended course of action. It can be changed or removed if society doesn't want it. There is provision for such amendments.
The "ruling" is the law, and rulings are challenged regularly. That's how the Supreme Court reversed Row v Wade, because someone "challenged the law," someone "challenged the ruling."
The Court makes rulings on the law. It is such rulings that can be challenged. Lower court rulings can be overturned by higher courts. This doesn't mean that the higher court is right and better than the lower court at reading the law. The umpire makes the call even though he is an ass. Most tennis players will tell you that.
The 14th Amendment is clear in defining American citizenship, which brings us back to my original question, "why is this even being heard?"
No law is clear. This is why we have courts for deliberating on the reading of the law. If the law is as clear as you imagine, we would only need executioners and do away with lawyers and judges.
Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M
Elisbch · M
@Crazywaterspring
You're assuming we're still going to have fair elections,.. if any elections at all. That is not in the Project 2025 plan. The Orange Turd knows he's not going to live forever. That's why all his cast and crew and Senate are how they are now and always will be going forward.
You're assuming we're still going to have fair elections,.. if any elections at all. That is not in the Project 2025 plan. The Orange Turd knows he's not going to live forever. That's why all his cast and crew and Senate are how they are now and always will be going forward.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@Crazywaterspring Dem! GOP! Dem! GOP! The USA is dying from it and so, onward! Dem, GOP! Puh leeeeze continue!
independentone · M
tobynshorty · 51-55, F
@independentone Also his three kids and Baron
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
But it gave executive orders new freedom from judicial review, and even birthright citizenship will be unavailable unless someone sued... But where there's no national nothing you have great again! And whatever to you!
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Actually, no, the axes fell on the judiciary and that's going to axe birthright citizenship right away. Slowly nothing no socialism incrementally. . Fascists. Bipartisan.