Johnny

@mman0128 @tonidevelin They would rather tv executives and ADs to make $50 million a year than players get a penny. It’s absurd.

@tonidevelin I hate this argument The money us there - so it either goes to the players ir somewhere else. They shoukd mane the miney that is there

I’m going to say it again for those in the back: No college player needs to earn this kind of money. How does anyone think this is sustainable at the college level? Just go assign schools to be minor leaguers to the NBA franchises and skip the whole NIL farce.

@DaveWainwright_ @tonidevelin That’s how it’s always been….. going back to the 1950’s there had been less than 25 different teams to win a national championship. (There is actually more that can pay it, but put it towards other sports)

@tonidevelin Its not sustainable. Only 25 or so schools can pay that.

@tonidevelin Why not? They generate X times that in revenue for the athletic departments and the NCAA. Why are they deserving of earning what they are worth? This isn’t Tuesday church league. It’s a billion dollar industry and you expect them to be the labor in it for essentially nothing?

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1866. You could literally step foot off of a boat. There were no immigration laws. If you want the 14th to reflect modern immigration laws then change it. They even discussed foreigners in that case.

@THELove_Muscle @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter The authors of the 14th did NOT intend for illegal aliens who broke our laws and snuck into the country illicitly to be able to produce US citizens!

The 14th amendment was about freed slaves ONLY. The framers might have made that point with greater clarity, except our Constitution intentionally avoids referring to race or slavery, out of embarrassment. Instead, the framers used convoluted euphemisms, like “free Persons” and “all other Persons” or “Person held to Service or Labour.” Even the post-Civil War amendments—despite being all about slaves and slavery—go out of their way to minimize the subject, by, for example, guaranteeing “equal protection” to “any person within [a state’s] jurisdiction.” That’s the reason for the 14th Amendment’s strange locution: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The odd phraseology wasn’t an IED meant to blow up in the country’s face a century later. The framers were expressing their discomfort with the “peculiar institution” that had been demanded by plantation owners in need of cheap labor. (Because, otherwise, “the crops would rot in the field”!) --TWO WONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter There was no immigration laws in 1866. If you want to change the amendment then do so.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter No, it's not. It never was intended to be that. If you asked Sen. Howard himself, "so your intention is that people who break the law to come here should be able to have US citizen children?" 🤣🙄🤨 Give me an effing break. It was never intended to be that. Ever.

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter I said its possible the amendment needs changing. There is a way to change amendments. What your saying is you really don’t care about the constitution. Just only your own narrow political views.

@THELove_Muscle @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Oh please. Striking down the EO achieves exactly what you people want. A less white population. It really is that simple. You don't give two shits about what a guy in 1866 thought about immigration policy.🙄

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter It has nothing to do with the demographics or anything along those lines. It’s about not changing the wording of the constitution simply because you disagree with it. Does the 14th need to be reexamined to fit the 21st cent. Possibly. But there is a process to that not an EO.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter So? That doesn't mean you don't want the country to be less white and more progressive which is exactly what BRC for illegal aliens achieves. More democrat voters.

@EddyMac87 @erichhartmann No. Because there were treaties in place that signaled that. Which they also discussed and later changed with the Indian citizenship law of 1924. They specifically discussed “Indians” being excluded due to them not being under jurisdiction because of the treaties.

@THELove_Muscle @erichhartmann Keep trying. So an Indian born off reservation land should have been a citizen?

I've been in this rabbit hole for years now. I used to believe that "Birthright Citizenship" was in our Constitution, and began researching it in order to better argue with conservatives and originalists who claimed it wasn't. But the more I read and studied the 14th, Wong Kim Ark, etc… the more I realized it was not only *not as simple as I had assumed* but it seemed to me to be the opposite: that the 14th was very clear about which classes were excluded, and the Wong ruling also did not extend to illegals and birth tourists. It became pretty obvious that so-called "Birthright Citizenship" in the US was just another progressive extrapolation that has been wrongly assumed as precedent, and simply hasn't been challenged due to a very powerful combination of progressive ideology and predatory economic interests. But the language of the 14th is not complicated, and it still means what the framers intended: that the 14th was written for the children of ex slaves, and clearly excludes (as does Wong) classes like visitors, illegal immigrants and birth tourists through their clearly stated "allegiance" standard and the full "jurisdiction" requirement. This article is great, and touches on some of the same important details that the "accepted narrative" pushers pretend don't exist. lawliberty.org/allegiance-bir…

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter So you can’t answer my question. Also you just argued against your own argument about that birthright citizenship was in fact a thing.

@THELove_Muscle @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Natural born citizenship was part of the founding documents since 1789. The Constitution absolutely does delinate between categories of people. All men are created equal does not mean all men are US citizens.

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter You’re purposefully omitted the rest of his statement.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter The author says it doesn't apply to aliens. Direct quote.

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Please explain what federal law determined legal status in 1866.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Correct. Race has nothing to do with it. Legal status does. Alien status does.

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter No a single individual is trying to reinterpret through executive order.

@THELove_Muscle @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter And a single individual is not. Our courts are.

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Your argument might apply if his sentence did not continue with “who belong to the families of ambassadors” it doesn’t say “or those who belong” furthermore they reaffirm it by stating it applies narrowly to 2 or 3 or 4 persons.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter His exact words were that the amendment doesn't apply to aliens. It's that simple. They're called aliens because they're aliens to US jurisdiction. "Illegal alien" is a term used 33 times in US Code.

@EddyMac87 @erichhartmann Your argument again falls flat. The 14th has nothing to do with parents or their intent.

@THELove_Muscle @erichhartmann *their intent to stay

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter They very much did bring up the argument of foreigners and that it applied to them. They made it apply broadly so no single individual could determine who a citizen was.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter There wasn't any need to. It was obvious the children of aliens were not subject to our jurisdiction and not citizens. If all the aliens were white conservative Christians from Germany I doubt you'd be so forcefully asserting automatic citizenship for their children. 😄🤣

@HuzzahHonzi @JustJustalan @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Maybe do some research yourself.

@JustJustalan @THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter It goes on to further describe how aliens are not included in the 14th amendment. Feel free to post how wrong you are.

@HuzzahHonzi @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Finish Mr. Howard’s sentence “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include all other classes of persons. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1866.

@THELove_Muscle @tgregoryt @AnnCoulter Illegal aliens are not included in the 14th amendment.

@EddyMac87 @erichhartmann No it doesn’t. Naturalization is a pathway to citizenship not a legal determinant

@THELove_Muscle @erichhartmann That goes back to reason they came up with the Naturalization process.

@EddyMac87 @erichhartmann Trumball himself could’ve objected to final understanding of the clues. He didn’t. Once again you have yet to explain how they determined someone was “illegal” or how long they intended to stay.

@THELove_Muscle @erichhartmann Under a strict originalist lens prioritizing Trumbull's drafting concerns, temporary or unlawful parents' children would not qualify—their ties are transient or non-consensual, lacking the "complete jurisdiction" or domicile for full allegiance.

@EddyMac87 @erichhartmann What “kiddo” No response?

@EddyMac87 @erichhartmann “Howard the clauses author did not object, no one contradicted him. “Explicitly understood the final clause included non-diplomatic aliens.”