DietCheddar

@capeandcowell It’s kinda wild to try to talk shit about a Supreme Court Justice while unable to understand the reason for her question lol

Just stole my neighbor’s wallet. According to the Supreme Court I now own his house and truck.

The other guy blocked me because he’s scared of a conversation. Perhaps you’re right. The point is the Supreme Court *could* disagree with you and if they can consider outcomes then they can reinterpret the 2A with that in mind.

@EWErickson This is your clown show, buddy.

Oof.

@jackunheard Oh wow, does that change the text of the 14th amendment???

🚨BREAKING: It has just been revealed that 320,000 children, nearly 9% of all U.S. births, were born to unauthorized or temporary migrant mothers. Holy smokes...

@FRXianHumanist @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 If amendments passed with supermajority, people were represented. And how is Putin president if we also elected a president to prevent it? Telling you need an impossible scenario to make your point. Make it easy, should Trump ignore the constitution for the birthright cit issue?

@DietCheddar @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 You need to try and think about second, third, and fourth order consequences of allowing the world to come here and become “American.” There are 8 billion people, most of which hate us.

If the Supreme Court strike's down Trump's birthright citizenship EO, then he needs to immediately pivot the party in the direction of implementing an immigration moratorium for at least 10 years. An amendment to the constitution isn't happening anytime soon so this would be the best way to mitigate the long-term damage and ramifications of such a disgraceful ruling.

@FRXianHumanist @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 A party ignoring the constitution for their goals is inherently more detrimental to the country than your issues with birthright cit. If I’m wrong, an amendment can be used to revise it. If you’re wrong, it’s too late, you’ve already thrown out the constitution.

Yeah I don’t think gonna convince you this is a problem ok twitter. You’re clearly very excited about the direction America is going. Hope it works out for you. I’ll just say that it’s absurd to think that strong executive leadership or even monarchy are inherently less tyrannical than democracy. The mob can be every bit as evil and sadistic as the most wicked tyrants. I’ll take a good mob over a tyrannical man, but I’ll also take a good man over a tyrannical mob any day. Evidently, Trump isn’t that good man. But I hope we find one someday, or by some miracle become a good nation again.

@FRXianHumanist @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 There is absolutely no evidence this is going to capsize the US. Dont be dramatic. And you are, in fact, obligated to abide by it. So good luck with that. Bit ironic to quote the Declaration of Independence while advocating for an executive to ignore a co equal branch of gov lol

@DietCheddar @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 That’s a great argument if you’re right. But if I’m right and the nation is about to fully capsize, and this decision is the watershed moment, we are under no obligation to abide by it. Read the Declaration of Independence. They knew the Constitution could become ineffective.

@FRXianHumanist @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 How would a president and Congress be elected to stop something that already had amendments allowing it? Amendments have huge hurdles to pass and the voters allowed it to go through? That scenario sounds like the voters weren’t ignored at all lol

@DietCheddar @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 Assume for the sake of argument that this scenario was achieved by constitutional amendments, and that a president and congress were elected specifically to prevent this disaster, but they instead went through with handing Putin the keys. We voted, we won, and they ignore us.

@FRXianHumanist @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 One side arguing their issue is a national crisis and needs to ignore the constitution to fix it is the *exact* reason why we have our constitution. You want it fixed? Get the support and amend.

@FRXianHumanist @TheKeplarHermit @KeeganLowe6 I mean that scenario necessarily implies that the constitution is already gone. But to answer your question, no I wouldn’t. If national survival was at stake, the constitution can be amended. That is, in fact, the whole point.

@KyleFSB8096 @Harrystwaddle @CKDeGods @GeraldoRivera This isn’t true at all. The court did not factor in the parent’s legal residency into the holding.

@Harrystwaddle @DietCheddar @CKDeGods @GeraldoRivera It's just a modern problem that was never addressed until now. If you read discussions from the 19th century, it's pretty obvious the 14th amendment was only made with freed slaves in mind. Wong Kim Ark basically only won the case because they were lawfully present in the US.

The president is right. The 14th Amendment was originally intended to embrace slaves and the children of slaves. Its passage in 1868, made it unconstitutional to deny citizenship to all children born here. Example: Despite odious attempts over the years to deny them, all Native Americans are (the original) citizens. So are all other babies who in Bruce Springsteen’s words were “Born in the USA.”

@Morgonn Wait you’re saying different countries have different laws 😮 😮😮😮😮😮

If I give BIRTH in Japan my child isn’t a Japanese citizen though….

@RumHtwn You’re using “bad interpretations” as a proxy for outcomes. For example, someone could simply say bad interpretations of the second amendment has caused messy consequences, so we need to restrict gun rights. That has nothing to do with the text, precedent or history.

@DietCheddar And people are bringing up national sovereignty because of the bad interpretations/messy consequences.

The other guy blocked me so I couldn’t respond lol. Scalia famously found that constitutional rights are not absolute. That does not mean he considered “outcomes” was the reason that there are limits to the 2A.

@RumHtwn Ok first, Sauer made the comment, which prompted the court. That’s not bad faith lol. Second, this thread was specifically about the impact on national sovereignty

@DietCheddar It's not an argument of the administrations it was based off a question about birth tourism.

@RumHtwn How was it bad faith?

@DietCheddar The "bad outcomes" discourse is from a back and forth between a justice and council and was misinterpreted in bad faith.

@RumHtwn Then they have to prove that with the text, precedent, and history. They can’t rely bad outcomes for national sovereignty and call it a day. They can’t ignore the plain text.

@DietCheddar And neither is the current administration's argument on birthright citizenship. The "outcomes" you're referring to are notions on what the spirit of the Constitution is in itself and how that influences the text written. We've gotten it wrong for 150 years and the outcome is bad.

@RumHtwn No. The current court explicitly does not consider outcomes when making a ruling. It considers the text, precedent, and maybe history to interpret what something means. They do not consider the potential outcomes.

@DietCheddar What do you mean by "outcomes" everything is decided based on some form of outcomes?

@KeeganLowe6 @REALLYOFFENDYOU @TheKeplarHermit You blocked me you absolute pussy lol

@KeeganLowe6 @REALLYOFFENDYOU @TheKeplarHermit Historically presidents have not knowingly signed unconstitutional EOs. They may sign EOs they believe fit within their statutory authority then the EO is later said to be unconstitutional. But they don’t sign EOs they know are unconstitutional lol