Keith

@California__OG @schuttsm The Supreme Court is not there to have any President’s”back”.

@schuttsm What are Trump’s options then? E.O halting visas? Immigration moratorium? Everything will get shot down by some liberal justice & it seems (as of lately) the SC does not have Trump’s back. Only way Trump gets a SC win is if a liberal justice passes away within the nxt few months

If SCOTUS doesn't end birthright citizenship, then trump should end the H4 visa

@thelivingvote @officialtannen @tripgabriel “Who cares about competence “ you say that and follow it up with this? Do you have the memory of a goldfish?

@officialtannen @tripgabriel But your opinion means nothing. You simply don't know. Neither do I, therefore I don't make categorical statements about things of which I know nothing. You apparently do. Thats not discussion it's bigotry.

The reason for Gen. George's firing, in part: Hegseth for months has pressed Gen. George & Army Secy Dan Driscoll to remove 4 officers -- 2 Black & 2 female -- from a promotions list. George & Driscoll have refused, citing the officers long and exemplary service.

@deconstructtds @NathanDahm This was even the belief in the passing of the CRA of 1866. Trumbull also being one of the primary authors of the CSA of 1866 and the 14th.

@IntrepidKeith @NathanDahm I deeply and fundamentally disagree. The framers were clear about 2A, and they were clear about 14.

For several years I filed a bill that would end birthright citizenship in Oklahoma. It was simple: on the birth certificate it would either say citizen or foreign national depending on if the parent(s) were citizens or not. If SCOTUS screws this up, the States can still ignore them & handle it correctly.

@deconstructtds @NathanDahm Foreigners and aliens are descriptive of the families of ambassadors, hence why "who belong to" is the bridge. This is from the Senate debate for the 14th. This is as about as straight forward as it gets on intent.

@deconstructtds @NathanDahm Because it would be the correct legal ruling. Good or bad is a political policy discussion, not a judicial one.

@IntrepidKeith @NathanDahm Again, not sure why you think that’s a good thing.

@revenant_MMXX The Constitution does not grant rights, it limits governmental intrusion into those rights. You should read it sometime.

Roberts is particularly disgusting because his little "it's a different world, but the same constitution" routine never seems to apply when we need to reinterpret the constitution to hallucinate imaginary "rights" for this or that protected class. Totally repulsive coward.

@JDog83259 @KrivitskyDmitry @MW4Liberty You should read what the authors of the 14th said during its debate. They even debated if the children of gypsies are citizens and it was without a doubt, yes.

That is the legal definition set by the framers. The argument is absolutely what constitutes allegiance. Wong Kim Ark set the stage for allegiance to be a much broader scope than the framers intended. Saying that even though someone might be under the command of a foreign Government, they have allegiance based on where they are domiciled. It’s the core of the argument. Does the allegiance of the parents pass to the children at birth?

Ron Paul, the 🐐, on Birthright Citizenship. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, as part of Reconstruction after the Civil War. Its original intent was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved African Americans and protect them from discriminatory state laws through due process and equal protection. It should not grant automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant full political allegiance to the U.S., which illegal entrants and their children lack. The framers never intended to reward unlawful presence or create incentives for illegal immigration. This was essentially the argument made by the solicitor general yesterday in front of the SCOTUS. I call balls and strikes. Trump’s team is right on this one.

@deconstructtds @NathanDahm Congress role is to close loopholes, not the judiciary. It’s going to be 7-2.

@IntrepidKeith @NathanDahm I mean, there’s a lot of hypocrisy to be found, which is why it’s so important they get this right and close the loopholes, because I promise you congress does not have the will or organization to fix the issue. Your entire argument is “just let it happen because.”

@deconstructtds @NathanDahm You have a couple of options. 1. Amend the Constitution. 2. If you want to limit the scope for something like Chinese anchor babies, I think Congress passing a very narrow immigration law could pass judicial muster.

I would argue it’s completely originalist because it would take the creators’ intention into account. Likewise for 2A, if you look at the way it was originally written, gun rights were considered inalienable and god given, and the militia aspect was listed second, but they just changed it for the flourish. What I would say about the founders and gun rights at the time vs now, firstly the guns available at the time were still quite deadly because they weren’t limited to muskets and pistols and could see where they were evolving yet still enshrined them. Secondly, they’d probably be shocked we haven’t revolutioned multiple times in the 20th century considering the Dems lax prison laws, gun control, and refusal to protect our children with guns. Having said that, how are you not equally hypocritical when we’re just trying to introduce common sense birthright/immigration controls, and you’d rather us just do nothing?

@PCSoonersFan I'm sure the next AG will continue the protection of pedophiles and rapists.

Great, can't wait to watch the libtards melt down when Trump announces a replacement for Pam.

@security_rm @LizMerry6 @marklevinshow It is not mentioned in the 14th.

THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HEARING I've been working on a few exciting projects (for the future), but here's my quick take: This is actually a very simple case but made messy for the justices.  90% of the time the justices spent asking questions/making statements that had absolutely no relevance to the 14th amendment but were result-oriented attempts at justifying birthright citizenship.  There were comments about administration, policy, English common law, etc.  But anyone who can read and comprehend the civil rights act in 1866 that preceded the amendment, the debates surrounding the act, and the subsequent draft and debate around the 14th amendment would know full well that the amendment never -- in any way -- contemplated granting birthright citizenship to foreigners, let alone illegal aliens.  It would have been unimaginable.  In fact, it was not intended to be an immigration amendment.  It was passed by Congress and ratified by the states to enshrine in the Constitution and across all states the treatment of newly freed slaves and their children as citizens after the Civil War, and because certain states refused to acknowledge their citizenship.  Indeed, President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, his veto was overridden, but that was the impetus for the constitutional amendment.   The language -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- had a specific meaning and intent.  As explained years ago by me and others, this refers to the political allegiance to the United States and is derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship to the freed slaves and their children. Again, to underscore, it had nothing to do with immigration at all.  Therefore, foreigners who come into the United States illegally cannot confer upon themselves "jurisdiction" for the purposes of granting citizenship to their babies because they were born in our country.

@chiquito9107 @AAGDhillon @teri_tmccoy1134 @USEEOC @andrealucasEEOC No idea what you are trying to say.

@IntrepidKeith @AAGDhillon @teri_tmccoy1134 @USEEOC @andrealucasEEOC

Several people have reached out to us about this NBA issue. The primary jurisdiction for private employment discrimination claims lies with @USEEOC @andrealucasEEOC. A private attorney could help Mr. Ivey assess and pursue potential claims.

@WellsBlackerby @ResistItAllTX @marklevinshow Think about it real hard and you might figure it out.

@ResistItAllTX @marklevinshow ACB “what if we don’t know who the parents are?” What does that have to do with the law.

@realjhholliday @marklevinshow The First Lady and Baron better start packing their bags and heading out of America then.

@marklevinshow If you don’t have allegiance to America, you don’t belong here. In my opinion, that includes birther tourists, dual citizens, and devout Muslims.

@GrumpyGuy149642 @marklevinshow Why are you asking him about anything? BTW, it is going to be 7-2 against the Trump.

@marklevinshow So you’re thinking the justices are almost certainly going to say the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born to people here illegally? Is that where you think they are headed?

@christianllamar @marklevinshow 7-2 at worst against Trump.

@marklevinshow Yeap. This case is such an easy win and SLAM DUNK for Trump, I believe the hoopla is intended to have a Dobbs-like reaction when people realize Trump’s EO is upheld. Legal community & left wing SCOTUS justices went down rabbit holes to figure out how to make an incorrect ruling.

@LizMerry6 @security_rm @marklevinshow Here is the 14th.

@security_rm @marklevinshow Yes there are. For both the civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment.

@LizMerry6 @security_rm @marklevinshow Here is for the CRA of 1866.

@LizMerry6 @security_rm @marklevinshow Liz has problems with reading comprehension.

@security_rm @marklevinshow See the sentence in the photo that says “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, .. “