The Democrats are telling us, repeatedly, that if they win the House, they will impeach the president and conduct a reign of terror against all who work for him, all who have worked for him, and do everything possible to cripple his presidency.
Now, what are we going to do about that and how are we going to prepare to confront this? I don't expect on-the-spot immediate answers, but I do not think we should roll over and play dead as they burn down the country either.
@ZPoet@BasedMikeLee I would say he probably knows he’s incorrect.
But what he knows is that his followers, Trump supporters, are too stupid to figure any of this out
@BasedMikeLee You are incorrect as you always are, Mike. There was no such thing as "illegal aliens" in 1866. We had open borders then. He was referring to children of diplomats. And later the Supreme Court ruled exactly what it meant.
@BasedMikeLee Hey Mike, now let’s do Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8
The emoluments clause of the constitution,
I would imagine you are totally cool with Trump pissing all over that
@BasedMikeLee Is there a reason why you don’t put the actual verbiage of the 14th amendment?
Yes, there is.
Because the 14th amendment doesn’t say what you actually wish it would say
@sola_chad Atheists don’t attack Christianity.
Christians, however, bend and twist every discussion to make it seem as if they’re being attacked.
When the primary symbol of your religion is a dead man on a cross, you’re programmed to feel the victim
@StephenM Oh, just like the US government does today.
But now you have your dip shit followers blaming immigrants instead of you.
I see what you did there
The US military is well on its way to becoming a partisan political rogue federal agency just like all the others, largely because retired Republican veterans in Congress and elsewhere betray their oaths to the Constitution by remaining silent.
@Ceratisa@Trekkie0805@DaveProbably@TheFungi669 Craig is completely clueless
These “conservatives” love to manipulate the verbiage of the constitution or put words into the constitution that don’t exist. It’s exhausting.
@Trekkie0805@DaveProbably@TheFungi669 Cept they could have written it only applied to formerly enslaved or blacks etc. Those narrower drafting proposals were rejected outright in favor of the broader language. This is senate debate you can literally read about. They chose the broader wording over just former slaves.
Marco Rubio: “Just because you’re born on U.S. soil doesn’t make you a citizen. Your parents must be U.S. citizens.”
Grok: “Marco Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. His parents became citizens in 1975. Rubio is a beneficiary of birthright citizenship.”
@ScottAllen_1776@TheFungi669 Scott: doesn’t know what subject to the jurisdiction means
Scott: Monday morning lawyer Scott: big user of AI to get his answers
Scott: most importantly… an idiot
No! Once Marco’s parents became legal U.S. citizens Marco automatically became an American citizen regardless of where he was born.
Anyone born on U.S. soil to a parent or parents of illegal aliens are not automatically U.S. citizens.
Four words decide everything: Subject to the jurisdiction.
Illegal aliens owe no allegiance to the United States.
They fall outside the jurisdiction. History confirms it.
Congress had to pass a separate statute to grant birthright citizenship to American Indians.
They weren't subject to jurisdiction either.
So ask the simple question. If American Indians didn't get automatic birthright citizenship, how do the children of illegal aliens?
They don't.