JoeLogic

Democrats are domestic terrorists. They hold the people of this country hostage to get their way. They do NOT have the USA’s best interests in mind… ever.

@janninereid1 @PeriklesGREAT The Sunburn Kid Lil Lobstah

All I can think of is names like lil' carrot...y'all are funnier than me so I'll let you handle this one.👍🤣

The Fight For Social Justice instagram.com/reel/DWjLLo9CN…

@PeriklesGREAT Iced tea or lemonade made from the powders.

What is in the pitcher ?

@AnotherHomoCon @ScottPresler @Gigi22Tamara @LeaderJohnThune @RepJenKiggans We need 5 GOP Senators to call for it.

@ScottPresler @Gigi22Tamara @LeaderJohnThune @RepJenKiggans How about instead we start talking about how to replace him?

This is day 91 of asking @LeaderJohnThune to pass the SAVE America Act. CC: @RepJenKiggans

Godspeed, Artemis II!

@GuntherEagleman For ANY elected position.

Time to END DUAL CITIZENSHIP for members of Congress.

@GayCon88 Undoing the executive order also sets up the idea that US citizenship means absolutely nothing because now the entire world can just come here and screw us over while using us as a piggy bank.

@GayCon88 Sauer never addressed the concept of rewarding people who start out by breaking our laws.

God bless the efforts of Solicitor General Sauer, but I don’t think he convinced the justices today. I predict birthright citizenship will be upheld 8-1, maybe 7-2.

@SunCityCrypt0 @kingkzoox @AthletesInSpace In modern speak, the amendment would read: Because a well-prepared citizen militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

@kingkzoox @AthletesInSpace Why do you think that's preceded with language referencing a well regulated militia?

Okay now do the Second Amendment

@AlBuffalo2nite It also rewards people who break our existing laws. If we cannot exclude illegal aliens, we have no country, and being a US citizen has no meaning.

🚨Here’s the reality most Americans are reacting to… stripped of legal jargon… stripped of spin… This case isn’t abstract. It comes down to a simple question… Does crossing the border illegally… or overstaying a visa… Give you the ability to create a brand new U.S. citizen… automatically… at birth? That’s what’s being challenged right now under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. The current interpretation says yes… If you’re born here… you’re a citizen… almost no exceptions. That interpretation largely comes from United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But here’s where Americans are drawing a hard line… They’re not debating history textbooks… They’re looking at real-world behavior. People entering illegally… People overstaying visas… People flying in late-term specifically to give birth… And asking… Is that what the 14th Amendment was meant to protect? Or was it meant to guarantee citizenship to those fully under the allegiance and authority of the United States? That’s the legal fight happening right now in the Supreme Court. Not feelings… not headlines… A single phrase… “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” If the Court interprets that narrowly… Birthright citizenship changes overnight. If it keeps the current interpretation… Nothing changes. But don’t get it twisted… This isn’t fringe. This is a mainstream question being asked across the country… What does citizenship actually mean… and who does it apply to? Decision expected June or July 2026. That’s when the Constitution gets clarified… one way or the other. The silent majority speaks. You all already know how I feel about this. I don’t think you should reward criminals in schemer the ability to create new citizens for America a country that they’re not even From. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

@JohannesTuyl @Mark_McEathron Yes, it was meant to explicitly address the ultimate shitstain of a decision in Dred Scott where Chief Justice Taney claimed blacks couldn’t be US citizens, and if they were it would grant them the rights and privileges of such.

@Mark_McEathron in this analysis you did not mention two persons: slaves and the children of slaves. I was under the impression that the amendment's focus included them.

A little history on the 14th Amendment and the "birthright citizenship" clause. I'm reminded that a lot of people do not know the process involved in bringing an amendment from concept to to ratification and law, or why that process matters. Jacob Howard (Senate) and John Bingham (House) were the two guys that drafted and presented the proposed amendment to Congress. Once submitted, there is debate. Members of Congress express concerns, propose changes, and so on. These debates are recorded for posterity to look back upon to better understand what the legislation is intended to do. Then, once Congress passes it and presents it to the States, there is the Ratification Process in which each State can debate and present their concerns. This leaves us with a tremendous record of why specific words and phrases were chosen and what the intent was. It informs the voters on exactly what the law means, straight from the framers of it, so that there is no confusion. This is why originalism is preferred to textualism. The law can only mean what it meant when it was adopted. Altering the meaning and intent of the law is altering the law itself and subverts the legislative process. Courts do not have that power. Sadly, that hasn't stopped courts from usurping that power. In the Ratification process, the very questions being argued before SCOTUS today, were addressed unequivocally. When asked if the amendment applies to foreigners, the framers themselves had this to say, explicitly: Howard said: “This amendment… declares that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” Then he immediately defines the limitation: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…” That is the understanding of the law as it was ratified. That is what We The People voted to enact. Furthermore, they went even deeper on what "subject to the jurisdiction" explicitly meant: Howard described jurisdiction as: “Full and complete jurisdiction… not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Allegiance. That was the crux of the debate and understanding. For those born here from citizens of another Nation: “They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in a certain sense, but not in the full and complete sense.” - Howard Full and complete. That's what makes someone subject to the jurisdiction. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” - Senator Lyman Trumbull at the ratification debates They explicitly rejected absolute jus soli (citizenship by soil alone). In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the court applied the English Common law standard of jus soli, flagarently against Congress's explicit rejection of it during ratification. The court rejected originalism in favor of textualism. As a result, this Nation ended up with a very different legal structure than the Constitution created. The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment did not establish birthright citizenship. It ensured that due process and the rights and privileges in the States are preserved. If you listen to the oral arguments before the court today, I expect that you'll see this argument put forth. Allegiance, not presence, determines citizenship.

@AlBuffalo2nite In Wong Kim Ark, the parents were legally present in the US as permanent residents. The arguments today are about those not legally present and about citizenship tourism. Ultimately, why should we reward people who started out by violating our laws in the first place?

🚨What happened during oral arguments on birthright citizenship today… Today was not a ruling… it was a constitutional stress test. The case centers on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment … specifically the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The administration’s position is direct… Children born in the United States to illegal immigrants or temporary non-citizens are not fully under U.S. jurisdiction… and therefore are not automatically citizens. That argument challenges over a century of precedent… especially United States v. Wong Kim Ark … which has long been interpreted to guarantee birthright citizenship regardless of parents’ status, with narrow exceptions. Opposing them… The American Civil Liberties Union and allied plaintiffs argue the text is already settled… and that changing it would overturn a foundational constitutional understanding that has stood since 1898. That doesn’t mean it’s right. Now here’s what actually happened inside the courtroom… The justices did not give anyone an easy path. They pressed both sides hard on three fronts… *Text… what does “jurisdiction” actually mean in legal terms *History… what did the framers of the 14th Amendment intend after the Civil War *Consequence… what happens to millions of people if the interpretation shifts Early signals matter… Several justices… including John Roberts … showed skepticism toward the administration’s position… Not political skepticism… structural concern… Because changing this interpretation would not be a minor adjustment… It would redefine citizenship at a national scale. That carries massive downstream effects… Legal status Federal benefits Voting pathways Identity under the Constitution itself No decision was issued today… That’s critical to understand. Oral arguments are the testing phase… where weaknesses get exposed in real time. The ruling is expected late June or early July 2026. After the hearing… Donald Trump publicly criticized birthright citizenship again… calling the U.S. approach uniquely flawed compared to other nations. But inside that courtroom… This was not rhetoric… It was a direct confrontation over constitutional meaning. Not a quick win Not a quick loss A high-stakes interpretation battle that will determine how the 14th Amendment is applied in modern America. I do not believe people should be rewarded with citizenship. The silent majority speaks. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

@SonnieJohnson The problem goes back to Reagan and his signing of amnesty. It was one of his biggest mistakes.

Reminder...Republicans spearheaded pushing illegals into America. And now y'all are surprised they are slow walking the exit

@ThomasJFarrell7 The I stands for Idiot. Not one single person was charged with insurrection as defined under federal law. Compared to the BLM riots in 2020, January 6, 2021 was a peaceful protest. Other than a handful of people, most were only guilty of misdemeanor trespassing.

Virginia Democrats advanced a bill that requires Public School teachers to present Jan. 6th protests as an 'unprecedented insurrection' by the Republicans without offering any other viewpoint. "Jan 6th must be taught as “an unprecedented, violent attack on United States democratic institutions, infrastructure, and representatives for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election” The Bill bans: 🔺️Describing any portion of Jan. 6th as a “peaceful protest” or “peaceful demonstration.” 🔺️Teaching that allegations of 'election fraud' in the 2020 election could have any credibility, and that fraud could have changed the outcome of the election. The state is essentially forcing teachers to present a single partisan narrative while banning any alternative viewpoints on the 2020 election or the nature of the protest. House Bill 333, sponsored by Del. Dan I. Helmer (D-Fairfax) and backed by the Democratic majority, cleared both chambers of the General Assembly on party-line votes and now sits on Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s desk waiting for her signature. The legislation does not make it mandatory to teach January 6th, but imposes strict partisan guidelines for teachers who decide to teach on January 6th.

There is one argument that nobody seems to be making… Why should we reward people who broke our laws in the first place?

@SonnieJohnson Get well soon please. 🙂

Still sick😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

@ScottPresler @LeaderJohnThune John Thune is trying to torpedo the Trump administration. He should just switch parties and be a Democrat at this point. Or he could become a real leader and muster the votes necessary to pass it and get DHS funded.

This is day 89 of asking @LeaderJohnThune to pass the SAVE America Act. Can’t believe I’ve been posting about this for 89 days (& the Senate is on vacation).

Time for some chat… come join!

@Pixie1z @TruthJasonLee Doctor Who… everything after Capaldi did a nose dive into the Mariana Trench.

Can you think of one?

@JG_Theoriginal1 @Julie4Virginia AWFL Abby : Louise Lucas :: Miss Piggy : Frank Oz

@Julie4Virginia Her handlers would never let her.

Dear Abby is not going to debate former Virginia Governor George Allen on this gerrymandering referendum because she can’t defend it. George Allen would crush her in this debate.