Those are better..ha! It will be exciting to watch how this issue gets corrected. I hope it is soon. Someone mentioned the Brunson brother's Supreme Court case being released or something...
Brunson gets brought up every now and then, but then someone else nixes it as it seems Brunson and any/all appeals it may have had were killed months ago.
Contrary to the lies the left and the MSM would have one believe, PDJT is probably the most knowledgeable/well-informed president the US has ever had; is on top of all this kind of stuff, especially HUGE issues like this one; has the best advisors/staff; and likely expected this and has already had numerous advice and planning sessions about how to present and proceed with "next steps".
The real question is did Trump's Solicitor General read this into the transcript of the proceedings and the USSC chose to ignore it, OR he failed to include this vital piece - and utterance from the author of the Amendment, akin to the Federalist Papers on which USSC has relied to divine original intent of Constitutional authors in deciding other cases.
It would likely not matter. Liberals were going to vote the way they did, regardless.
Although it seems "plain as day" what the original intent was, the issue was open to interpretation (and, IMHO, abused by the judiciary and many others) for decades.
As such, while PDJT's EO rightly sought to clarify the matter and stop the abuse, an EO that can be undone by FUTURE presidents wasn't the best way to handle the matter.
It will be a harder row to hoe, but, as alluded to in (Kavanaugh's?) dissent, a (tightly-worded) constitutional amendment would be the best way to ensure this birthright citizenship travesty - and the possibility of flip-flopping on the issue - is ended and settled once and for all.
That may have been the intention. Also the quite reasonable understanding anyone with common sense would come to. Which was one of the points Justice Thomas brought up in his dissension.
But in this case the wording is vague enough self-proclaimed ‘Constitutional Literalists’ can bend it to fit modern political interests.
Yes, all too often. Like every other profession, some degreed are scholars while others merely possess a pieces of paper that garner respect and open all kinds of doors of opportunity because thise pieces of paper are mistaken for - and sold by paper holders as - knowledge, skill and ability.
Any definition of 'United States' that excludes mentioning 'States of the Union' only applies to federal territories, lands, and enclaves.
Frank Brushaber, born in New York, claimed New York citizenship in a case he filed when he was taxed on an investment in Union Pacific. Because UP was in Utah, he failed to understand that it was a federal corporation and dividends from it would be US source income.
When the US Treasury wrote Treasury Decision 2313, they used the term non-resident alien to describe Mr. Brushaber.
Non-resident means not living in the United States
Posted here over a year ago. https://greatawakening.win/p/19AKAyXNDy/bad-kitty-unleashedlibrary-o/c/
Well then, that's it right there in plain English!! We are smarter than 5 Supreme Court Justices. . .
Perhaps "less biased" or "not compromised"
👆🏻This!
Those are better..ha! It will be exciting to watch how this issue gets corrected. I hope it is soon. Someone mentioned the Brunson brother's Supreme Court case being released or something...
Brunson gets brought up every now and then, but then someone else nixes it as it seems Brunson and any/all appeals it may have had were killed months ago.
Yes, I did notice that kind of Brunson talk on our board a while ago too. I just don't know anything anymore... can't make heads nor tails.
That’s right. Those 5 including Roberts are compromised
I hope that Trump gets wind of this. I'm sure he probably already knows
Contrary to the lies the left and the MSM would have one believe, PDJT is probably the most knowledgeable/well-informed president the US has ever had; is on top of all this kind of stuff, especially HUGE issues like this one; has the best advisors/staff; and likely expected this and has already had numerous advice and planning sessions about how to present and proceed with "next steps".
The real question is did Trump's Solicitor General read this into the transcript of the proceedings and the USSC chose to ignore it, OR he failed to include this vital piece - and utterance from the author of the Amendment, akin to the Federalist Papers on which USSC has relied to divine original intent of Constitutional authors in deciding other cases.
It would likely not matter. Liberals were going to vote the way they did, regardless.
Although it seems "plain as day" what the original intent was, the issue was open to interpretation (and, IMHO, abused by the judiciary and many others) for decades.
As such, while PDJT's EO rightly sought to clarify the matter and stop the abuse, an EO that can be undone by FUTURE presidents wasn't the best way to handle the matter.
It will be a harder row to hoe, but, as alluded to in (Kavanaugh's?) dissent, a (tightly-worded) constitutional amendment would be the best way to ensure this birthright citizenship travesty - and the possibility of flip-flopping on the issue - is ended and settled once and for all.
That may have been the intention. Also the quite reasonable understanding anyone with common sense would come to. Which was one of the points Justice Thomas brought up in his dissension.
But in this case the wording is vague enough self-proclaimed ‘Constitutional Literalists’ can bend it to fit modern political interests.
If they're ruling is wrong that makes it illegal I believe we don't have to follow an illegal law
Has anyone verified this graphic above from some congressional documentation? I did a quick search and didn't find anything.
The jurist arent necessarily scholars. We give degreed people waaaaay toi much credit.
Yes, all too often. Like every other profession, some degreed are scholars while others merely possess a pieces of paper that garner respect and open all kinds of doors of opportunity because thise pieces of paper are mistaken for - and sold by paper holders as - knowledge, skill and ability.
"Trust but verify!"
Any definition of 'United States' that excludes mentioning 'States of the Union' only applies to federal territories, lands, and enclaves.
Frank Brushaber, born in New York, claimed New York citizenship in a case he filed when he was taxed on an investment in Union Pacific. Because UP was in Utah, he failed to understand that it was a federal corporation and dividends from it would be US source income.
When the US Treasury wrote Treasury Decision 2313, they used the term non-resident alien to describe Mr. Brushaber.
Non-resident means not living in the United States
alien means non-citizen of the United States