President Trump Responds to SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
Save America ASAP Congress!
Comments (43)
sorted by:
It seems the Supreme Court can’t define what a Citizen is.
Yes, Seems justice Amy is compromised…
Might have something to do with her home being SWATted and Kavanaugh having an actual assassination attempt on his family. You know, terrorism. Seems like it's working.
Past time to abolish the 14th & 19th amendment's!
I mean look at the damage that both are responsible for the demise of our Republic.
And Trump, stop endorsing/appointing cunts like ACB!
Most woman think with their hearts and not with their heads....
There needs to be some sort of merit to voting.
And I am not sure how this country will be saved without some sort of force and amendments to the constitution.
And with so many foreigners and brainwashed leftists idk how this gets solved.
Women's vote was a monumental mistake
So do our voices not count in an election?
So glad my conservative voting record means less to you than the liberal men I work with who volunteer for The Squad.
Very logical. Much reason.
It’s nothing against you specifically. I’m sure you are one of the good ones. But you a small percentage of the entire group. So the good your vote would do is outweighed by the terrible way so many women vote.
*are.
Couldn’t even correctly type a sentence in reply. Sigh.
Friendly reminder that women helped carry Trump across the 2016 finish line in multiple states. SourceAnd 2024. Source: There’s No Mystery: White Women Handed Trump the Election.
The undocumented illegal immigrant population used to steal the vote? Disproportionately male.
The vast majority of Epstein’s and Gates’ ilk? Male.
LGBT+ voters are the largest difference between Democrats and Republicans. Source
It’s also not our fault, as a sex, that men are voting less than women. Source
Perhaps you need to rally the good ole boys to the polls and stop blaming us for the poor decisions of SCOTUS judges we had no hand in selecting?
Reconcile reality to your frustration and disappointment. It’ll help everyone involved.
Comprehension and attention to details are not your strong suits. Sigh.
I was referring to “women”, not “white women”. Women voted against Trump 54-44 in 2024. While white women voted in favor of Trump their contribution was overwhelmed by non white women’s preference for Democrats.
So women did not help pull Trump across the line anywhere.
Your comment about the largest difference between Democrats and Republicans being the LGBT+ voters points out the weakness is your argument. While you are correct in the percentages within that group, it is a small part of the overall population. Women are the largest part and, as you pointed out, are more likely to vote than men. That makes them a very powerful voting group, unlike the LGBT group, and women prefer Democrats.
I am neither frustrated nor disappointed. I feel some projection going on there. As I said before, this is not blaming you or other women who voted for Trump. It is just pointing out how better the election results could be for all of us.
Face it - if women didn’t vote, the Senate, House, and state legislatures would be significantly more conservative.
100%.
-Males, over 35.
-Born here.
-No foreign ties.
-Tests for cognitive function: 3 R's, civics, reasoning, etc.
-No criminal history
Problem solved.
Take juries from the voter list too.
Politicians could be selected, from the voter list, by lottery.
Problems solved.
Exactly but I believe those women are compromised period
And the 16th (even though it was never fully ratified).
I was thinking the exact same thing.
When you see liberals all happy about this, play thier game. Just tell them, "Cool, that means Russians can come over here in droves and give birth to US Citizens where they can vote against anti-Russian laws." See how happy they are after that.
1.5million Chinese, living in China with US citizenship already.... it's a ticking time bomb.
If China sent them to the US, specifically swing states and other strategic locations and they could change elections
Outsource it all to Congress?
So. Expect absolutely fuck all to get done and any legislation to be tied up in committee for years if even proposed at all. With enough carve outs and exceptions that the law is effectively useless should it ever actually get passed.
Though it could also become one of the reoccurring campaign promises that they promise to work on. But never actually happens or else they’d have nothing to campaign on.
And all the while. We will be getting more and more foreigners capable of influencing our elections born here every year. And it also essentially makes it even more difficult to deport the motherfuckers already here if they pop out an anchor baby.
Yeah we aren’t voting our way out of this. We still have many on the “right” who support mUh lEGaL ImMiGRaTIon.
Which is why we must organize and push the issue of freedom of association. We have to find like minded people in our communities and consolidate power.
100%
I'm curious what legislation Trump is referring to which would fix the birthright citizenship issue that wouldn't be held up in the courts claiming it's unconstitutional?
one idea: Art. 3 Section 2, Clause 2 (Constitution*) Congress can remove from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can remove any subject matter from the appellate jurisdiction** —> so by a vote to remove citizenship issues from the Supreme Court, and by passing a law that says the opposite of the Supreme Court’s illegit. decision (the Byden appointee is not legit,), this wrongful “decision” gets nixed
If the DEI hire was fraudulant her vote doesnt count & Trump should be able to pick a new SCOTUS judge.
It seems the mid terms are now even more important to win. Congress can and must take this one and make it right.
A shallow majority in the senate isn't going to do squat. You're delusional
I need the constitutionally astute legal beagles again. How can legislation override a decision based on constitutional reasons?
In the meantime we can start requiring women to take a pregnancy test before they're allowed to enter.
The same way it was added to the Constituion to begin with. You add an ammendment.
2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states. If we can get the vote out, we can get it done.
I believe Congress also has the power to direct the Supreme Court to not take certain cases. So, whatever the legal tactic is to address the problem, Congress could codify the meaning of "not subject to the jurisdiction of" (namely, that the parents are citizens of another country) and direct the Supreme Court not to take any further cases turning on that question. But I will admit that, having read it once, I have been unable to find it since.
coequal branches of government, if the legislative & the executive team up after the Midterms, then Andrew Jackson style tell the S. Court to stuff it, who controls the military —> bye-bye illegals.
Second, Art. 3 Section 2, Clause 2 (Constitution) Congress can remove from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can remove any subject matter from the appellate jurisdiction** —> so by a vote to remove citizenship issues from the Supreme Court, and by passing a law that says the opposite of the Supreme Court’s illegit. decision, the Supreme Court wrongful decision goes to the trash bin.
Thank you!
I think Pres. Trump & team will get us through! 🇺🇸
I just read the cited clause and an article discussing it. I see how it could be used, so again thank you. And I agree about the President and team. They came up with prohibiting The PO from delivering ballots. Who'd have thought? Certainly not me.
14th Amendment applies citizenship to clones and test tube babies in the US too.
“…subject to jurisdiction of…”
My great grandfather renounced his allegiance to the Kaiser, and became subject to jurisdiction of the USA, when he came through Ellis Island from Germany in 1897. Prior to his signing he was subject to jurisdiction of Germany.
Trump picked that closet Democrat judge
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation did all the legwork, and gave Trump a list of candidates. It is almost always these think tanks on both sides that find the candidates and convince the POTUS to pick from that list, all-the-while telling him that only those candidates will be rock-solid conservatives (or liberals on the other side. Then of course all the deep state CONgress people (House and Senate) push for the one they want, though it is mostly the Senate that gets any traction. It is still possible for some jack-hole rep to threaten to withhold nomination/appointee votes to make sure the POTUS votes their way. It's all a huge mess.
He chose from the lists for SCOTUS candidates - as well as for the federal judges and a ton of appointees.
Until the deep state is finally eradicated, this will continue to happen.
Maybe he can write up an EO that is “national security emergency” for this one too
I've seen the point made that "no restriction" birthright made sense at the original founding (when people were arriving to a near complete wilderness to build) but that under the current circumstances, 250 years later, it doesn't.
So perhaps this decision is designed to set the stage for an explicit change to the rules, presumably that means change to the constitution could be coming in the future. i.e. this only looks silly now, but wouldn't have done in 1777, so you need the absurdity to be shown to get any kind of demand for a rethink?
Did we honestly think they were going to uphold it?
Only one way out of this…and it’s going to make a lot of women and leftists sad for a bit. A functioning Republic is only ever paid for in one currency and those willing to pay it have to ignore the crying and whinging in order to get to the end goal. . .
I’ve got a bunch of feathers on hand, but tar budget is a little light recently- open to any help from frens…
Seems the supreme court isnt so supreme