I have consistently written that the majority of patriotic US citizen taxpayers should have control of this republic per the US. Constitution

Where does the US Constitution are rights given to aliens other than to be legal non resident aliens to obtain Visas, or to become US citizens? @MistyCee

@jackjjackson The 14th Amendment section 1 clearly talks about "persons" as distinguished from "citizens" in connection with due process.

It may not be in Trump's version though.

[Edit: and Equal Protection]

@jackjjackson

Not clear in every case but is clear that is DOES NOT cover aliens. @MistyCee

@jackjjackson We'll see what SCOTUS has to say, but the distinction between citizens who have rights plus immunties and privileges and persons who have just rights seems pretty clear to me, and it's going to take some real mental gymnastics to say that aliens are not "persons."

Are you sure you even want to make that argument?

If they're not persons, what are they, vermin? Chattel?

The requirement of not just persons it’s persons born or naturalized here and subject to jurisdiction. Not simply person. Perhaps it’s a matter of the draw where a person is born however a person IS subject and the beneficiary only of the country where born or has later become a citizen. Borders exist. @MistyCee

@jackjjackson There's two sentences there.


The first one says which persons are citizens. The second one implies, at least, that all persons and not just citizens get due process and equal protection.

SCOTUS may agree with you, but it's going to be difficult for them to get there without, say, making up stuff completely and disregarding plain text like they did with Presidential immunity.

Persons is a defined term in that section. The second time it appears is no different than the first time. I’d have to conclude that your interpretation is much more of a leap to get to. @MistyCee

@jackjjackson @MistyCee

OK here's how I see it:

@jackjjackson You're saying that the rights and control of the U.S. government should be reserved for patriotic US citizen taxpayers. You're focusing on the idea that only a specific subset of the population (those who are "patriotic" and pay taxes) should have a significant say in governance. You're trying to argue that only U.S. citizens (and specifically those who align with your worldview by the looks of things) should be considered "persons" in the context of rights and protections under the Constitution.

@MistyCee You're showing correctly that the 14th Amendment provides equal protection and due process to all persons, not just citizens. The 14th Amendment specifically distinguishes between "citizens" and "persons," and asserts that "persons" (including non-citizens) are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law. You're pointing out correctly that @jackjjackson is ignoring the inclusive nature of the Constitution, which protects individuals regardless of their citizenship status.

@MistyCee you are right.

The 14th Amendment, in its first section, explicitly states that "persons" within the jurisdiction of the U.S. are entitled to due process and equal protection. The term "persons" is used broadly and does not just apply to citizens. @jackjjackson claiming that only "patriotic US citizen taxpayers" should control the republic is a misinterpreting the Constitution, which ensures that the rights and protections guaranteed under the Constitution apply to all persons, not just a narrow group.

@jackjjackson Person is not defined, which is why we got Citizens United, by the way.

The first sentence defines citizens as a subcategory of persons (actually several).

If the second sentence was to apply only to citizens, it could have said so, but it doesn't, and there's a long history of making that distinction which would have to be addressed before stripping away due process and equal protection rights from non-citizens.

In addition, the 14th amendment came long after the 5th, which also talks about persons and not citizens.

The better argument (and it's not really great) is to give up on due process (or limit it) and focus on subject to jurisdiction.

Arguing that human beings are not people is a bad look. If you only want to knock out birthright citizenship, that's the better way to go.

Now, it doesn't get you to deporting native born Democrats, or keeping Euro-trash sluts like Melania while getting rid of browner and yellower folks, of course.

Isn’t the issue aliens? @MistyCee

@jackjjackson I'd say it's persons, aliens or non aliens. Are aliens persons?

In reality sure all are persons . Constitutionally as in real life there are different types of persons. @MistyCee

@jackjjackson Funny how 'patriotic' and 'taxpaying' seems to always get defined by people who want to limit rights to certain groups, based on who they deem 'worthy.' If you’re excluding non-citizens or certain races from equal protection, it’s not just politics, it's racism. At least be honest about it." @MistyCee

Wrong. I am discussing aliens and citizens only. Take your lame act elsewhere



@wishforthenight

@jackjjackson LOL!

You're accusing me of being a troll while posting insulting memes and using vague, exclusionary rhetoric that invites exactly the kind of reaction you're pretending to rise above. That’s classic trolling behavior, dude.

Your statement about "patriotic US citizen taxpayers" supposedly having control over the republic is not the straightforward, constitutional claim you pretend it is. It’s a dog whistle: it's language that sounds reasonable on the surface but is designed to exclude people you don’t agree with or approve of.

You insist there’s “nothing ambiguous” about your words while using loaded terms like “patriotic” and “taxpayer,” which are deeply subjective and politically charged. Who gets to decide who’s “patriotic”? You? That’s not how democracy works, sorry.😁

And now you’re claiming you were only talking about citizens and aliens, but that’s a deflection. The phrase “majority of patriotic US citizen taxpayers” is doing way more work than just identifying citizenship status. It’s implying that some citizens count more than others, and that those who don’t meet your ideological or economic test deserve less voice or power.

So let’s call it what it is: You're the one trolling - hiding behind vague, high-sounding language to promote exclusionary ideas, then lashing out when challenged, and not only against me.

That’s not constitutionalism. That’s just gaslighting.

Nun uh. Nope not me. It’s you. Look at lil those unkind words you’ve written.



@wishforthenight

@jackjjackson You deserve every word.

@wishforthenight