Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Supreme Court ordered Biden to reinstall the Trump border policies in 2021 which he ignored.I must have. Please remind me.
-- A2SG, can't remember everything.....
Do you mean this decision:The Supreme Court ordered Biden to reinstall the Trump border policies in 2021 which he ignored.
Uh, not quite.The Supreme Court ordered Biden to halt repayment of student loans in 2023, which was halted but resumed and was halted AGAIN in 2024.
There is no evidence that is occurring. This ruling placed limits but did not end nation wide injunctions. Litigants will have to change the suits so that nation wide injunctions can be applied.yup no more activist judges stonewalling the President.
Political opinions should never be involved in a ruling. They are to rule by law.The opinions of Justice Barrett notwithstanding, the ruling did not find nationwide injunctions to be unconstitutional.
Even if these particular judges may not, others might. Judges, like everyone else, have political opinions.
You already allowed for political opinion.Whether or not a judge is elected to office or appointed doesn't change the fact that they rule based on the law and the Constitution. They have the power to pass legal judgment, and if someone, even the occupant of the Oval office, violates the law or the Constitution, judges have the authority, and the duty, to rule as such.
-- A2SG, no one is above the law....at least, they didn't use to be....
All judges offer their opinion about how the law and the Constitution is applied to the specific case at hand. Their opinions then become the decision of the court.Political opinions should never be involved in a ruling. They are to rule by law.
If you feel this, or any, Supreme Court decision is contrary to the Constitution, feel free to voice your own opinion.You already allowed for political opinion.
[/QUOTE]Do you mean this decision:
Supreme Court rules Biden administration can end “remain in Mexico” policy, sending case back to a Texas court
The Trump administration created the Migrant Protection Protocols, also called “remain in Mexico,” in 2019 before the Biden administration canceled it in 2021. The ruling sends the case back to a Texas federal court.www.texastribune.org
Not quite as you remember it?
Actually, it turns out the second attempt was also illegal and the Supreme Court halted that, also. As I noted earlier.Uh, not quite.
No, Biden didn’t defy the Supreme Court on student loans
And neither did Trump on TikTok!www.wakeuptopolitics.com
When President Biden tried to forgive student loan debt through the HEROES act, that was ruled unconstitutional. He did not defy that order, he simply found another way to do it that wasn't unconstitutional.
-- A2SG, so not the same....
SCOTUS has already ruled upon this exact issue, c.f. United States v. Wong Kim ArkIt does not pertain to this......
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
It pertains to this......
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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 supreme court will decide on this...
No it has not.SCOTUS has already ruled upon this exact issue, c.f. United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Nice try.No it has not.
Status of the parents
1. who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision[2] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
2. but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
This decision is coming before the supreme court because
Number one applies to them. With regards to their countries of origin
Number two does not. With regards to the united states, they are here illegally, as ILLEGAL ALIENS
THE BABY IS NOT HERE ILLEGALLY.With regards to the united states, they are here illegally, as ILLEGAL ALIENS
Irrelevant. The parents are. The parents are citizens of another country and do not have legal rights to remain in this country. Children born of citizens of another country who do not have a legal right to remain in this one should be citizens of the country of the parents.THE BABY IS NOT HERE ILLEGALLY.
This touches upon how we read the 14th Amendment. It concerned Slavery in America and the ending of it.Irrelevant. The parents are. The parents are citizens of another country and do not have legal rights to remain in this country. Children born of citizens of another country who do not have a legal right to remain in this one should be citizens of the country of the parents.
It is one thing to disagree. But to pretend this has already been settled is another. The supreme court is taking this up because this particular issue has not been decided. Birthright citizenship. has simply been a term erroneously used which is like undocumented immigrant, instead of illegal alien. This will be decided. We will see where it goes. Alien is a term to denote non citizen, ie a citizen elsewhere. Heck, dreamers took it to another step further. That slippery slope of not enforcing law....Thats our position. No anchor babies. Go home and take your child with you. We will be HAPPY to have you apply for citizenship and come here on invitation. Then you AND your child can participate in this great country and we will welcome you with open arms.
They already did.The supreme court will decide this.
No, the baby born in the United States does.The parent violating our law does not become legal because they gave birth.
You know this is such a problem today that is the court decided on the side of illegal aliens, then I think it is possible there will be a call to amend the constitution to clarify it to the will of the people. There just might be enough to support this to actually do it. People are tired of this stuff.I dont know how this will play out. Everyone of course is allowed their opinion. And court is allowed theirs. If they decide that the child is in fact a citizen, then so be it.
Congress then needs to change immigration law to clarify rhat the child is a citizen, the parents are still illegally here and subject to deportation. They can either take the child with them and apply for citizenship or leave the child here with a legal citizen. They can still apply if course and come back if accepted.
Why do you say this when you know it is untrue?They already did.
The baby does not make the parent here legally. Nor does it alter the illegal actions to be here.No, the baby born in the United States does.
No it is about the status of the parent, with regards to a child born.You’re stuck on the parents. This law pertains to children born in the United States.
No, the Supreme court will decide this. And you know full well they will. You may like their decision, you may not like their decision. But this is yet to be determined.However they got here, they’re American citizens from the day they are born, according to the letter of the law of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.
Irrelevant. The birthright clause of the 14th amendment only mentions the rights of the children born within the US. They are citizens. Full stop. It doesn’t qualify that the parents have to be here legally. It doesn’t state that either of the parents need to be citizens. It says very plainly ALL PERSONS BORN.Irrelevant. The parents are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?