Bullies are cowards
Supreme Court upholds principle that almost all born on U.S. soil are American
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Bullies are cowards
You are trying to create ideas from the innermost recesses of your broken lib mind.
Wut? Did you, or did you not say "no more mr. nice guy"? Yes, or no?
If you did say that (and you did ... it's right there, in the thread), does that not mean that you were previously being the "nice guy," but now you're not going to be the "nice guy"? In other words, you're going to change your behavior.
So, I asked what you're going to do now ... how is your behavior going to change?
You've been unable to answer this simple question, beyond saying you're going to continue doing what you have been doing (i.e. your behavior isn't going to change).
Thats what the x post said. I agree with it but im not planning to take to the streets at this time. No more mr nice guy can mean a lot of different stuff. Nuking the filibuster and passing the save act sounds good.
Well let's see what a former constitutional scholar and editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review has to say about the subject nimrod:
Former President Barack Obama is a strong supporter of traditional birthright citizenship. He believes the 14th Amendment's clause—granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—is a foundational constitutional right. He has actively opposed attempts by other politicians to alter this interpretation. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key aspects of Obama's stance:
- Constitutional Defense: Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, strongly defended the 14th Amendment. He argued that the plain text of the Constitution and established law clearly protect the right to citizenship for babies born on American soil. [1, 2]
- Opposition to Reinterpretation:Obama op
- posed any attempts to strip citizenship from the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. He argued that ending this right would disrupt the basic democratic values of the country. [1]
- Personal Scrutiny: During his presidency, Obama faced conspiracy theories questioning his own eligibility to serve because of false claims about his birthplace. In response, he released his long-form birth certificate in 2011 to prove he was born in Hawaii, putting the issue to rest. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- U.S. Territories Stance: While he defended birthright citizenship within the 50 states, his administration took a more limited view in court regarding U.S. territories. In a legal brief argued before the D.C. Circuit Court in 2014, his Justice Department argued that Americans born in U.S. territories do not have an automatic constitutional right to citizenship. []
- You can read a broader breakdown of historical myths and realities on the subject in the American Immigration Council report. [1]
9 sites- Made in America: Myths and Facts about Birthright Citizenship - American Immigration Council
Mar 25, 2010 — The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that all people born or naturalized in the United States are U.S. citizens. Ho...
American Immigration Council - Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia
Theories alleged that Obama's published birth certificate was a forgery – that his actual birthplace was not Hawaii, but Kenya. Ot...
Wikipedia - With Birth Certificate Release, Obama Urges Shift in National Dialogue
Apr 27, 2011 — In response to revived, high-profile skepticism about his U.S. citizenship, President Obama released his long-form birth certifica...
PBS
- Made in America: Myths and Facts about Birthright Citizenship - American Immigration Council
Attachments
-
1782945105977.png
Last edited:
What a joke. Obama is just a politician and was an affirmative action appointment at Harvard. I remember him lying that nobody would lose their private health insurance under Obamacare.
Man I bet this guy dropped the hard R all the time when Barry was in office
Now you have cemented your stupidity, JFC
Yeah, Harvard lets lots of "just politicians" edit its f.ucking law review. You moron. How in the f.uck do you "conservative" fucwads even function in day-to-day life with s.hit for brains?
Last edited:
He went to a bad college and a worse law school. As such, he's very anti-elite-educational institutions (jealousy). His anti-Ivy (and comparable institutions) rants are legendary. I think he once dismissed Harvard ... or maybe it was Yale ... because they allowed Hillary to speak there ... and since she was a proven liar (according to him) about one particular subject, that means the entire educational institution is crap. Seriously. That happened.
This lack of logical reasoning also explains why he couldn't gain admission to a decent law school (his LSAT scores must have been abysmal).
He even carried that hatred forward and took it out on his son, not allowing his progeny to attend a decent film school (because all those schools are evil/dumb) and forcing a wannabe film-maker to help people make Massengill ads, rather than pursuing his dream, because he had to "pay his dues" by doing crap work, rather than what he wanted to do and was good at.
It's tragic, really.
Given the disaster the rest of his life was, though ... it all kinda makes "sense."
Oh FFS, you and Tiger Growls are too stupid to be real. "long majority opinion"--LOL.
And you and the rest of the southern rebel traitor scum lost the Civil War, deal with it. The Reconstruction Amendments were put in the constitution by the winners of that war specifically to ensure prevention of any attempts to overturn the results.
Hasn't stopped you nuts anyway.
Your ability to rage and throw out insults can't hide your ignorance. Obama admits his stay at Harvard was aided by affirmative action in the link I provide below. Here is his wisdom and brilliant writing style in a letter published in the Harvard Law Record: "Now you have cemented your stupidity, JFC
Yeah, Harvard lets lots of "just politicians" edit its f.ucking law review. You moron. How in the f.uck do you "conservative" fucwads even function in day-to-day life with s.hit for brains?
"In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.
"Since the merits of the Law Review's selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues," wrote Obama, "I'd like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works. ....
Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times. In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: "Approximately half of this first batch is chosen ... the other half are selected ... "
Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space. Please note the unanchored phrase in italics at the end of this sentence:
"No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind." Huh?"
There is also a reference to the obvious affirmative action that got Michelle Obama into Harvard Law: "Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, "Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well." 5 years after graduating from law school, she had given up her law license. https://www.americanthinker.com/art...nability_to_write.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Obama was just an average nobody given opportunities at Harvard because of his race in the same way that Michelle was the recipient of affirmative action. Some could argue he was an above average politician, but he was in no way a scholar or an exceptional student.
Last edited:
The Constitution was so clear and obvious on this issue that the majority opinion was only 52 pages long in the Kim Ark case. As you Lefties say, a very simple obvious Constitutional provision whose applicability to the children of illegals is super simple and crystal clear and not subject to any debate. The justice who wrote the 52 page opinion just liked to write for fun.
Last edited:
Morons are people who name call but can't make logical or reasoned arguments. You just cemented your status as one.
You said the editor of the Harvard Law Review and former constitutional scholar is unqualified to comment on the 14tamendment and you accuse ME of being illogical
This is why everyone in this thread is calling you a moron.
Moron.
Moron, I didn't say he was unqualified to comment. I said he had no special qualifications that would give his opinion a great deal of weight. If you had a brain in your head, you would know that he was not a scholar. Just because he occupied the opposition at Harvard doesn't mean he did anything. Just like Biden was a corpse and was theoretically presidentof the United States.You said the editor of the Harvard Law Review and former constitutional scholar is unqualified to comment on the 14tamendment and you accuse ME of being illogical
This is why everyone in this thread is calling you a moron.
Moron.
Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my comment. You idiot lunatics are amusing.
Last edited:
Except that opinion was an issue of first impression, which are traditionally longer opinions.
For the idiots claiming that Obama was a constitutional scholar. From chat GPT:
"Despite teaching constitutional law for about 12 years, he did not develop the kind of academic publication record that is common for tenure-track law professors. He was a lecturer rather than a tenure-track professor, and lecturers generally are not expected to produce legal scholarship at the same rate." He published nothing and notwithstanding graduating from Harvard, he could only obtain the low prestige job of lecturer.
"Despite teaching constitutional law for about 12 years, he did not develop the kind of academic publication record that is common for tenure-track law professors. He was a lecturer rather than a tenure-track professor, and lecturers generally are not expected to produce legal scholarship at the same rate." He published nothing and notwithstanding graduating from Harvard, he could only obtain the low prestige job of lecturer.
Please cite me your authority that what you call opinions of first impression are traditionally longer. I am a lawyer and I have never come into contact with that idea. In any event, the idea that the constitutional issue with regard to birthright citizenship is crystal clear is not correct.
It’s been clear since 1898.
And if you don’t believe that issues of first impression in the Court - where the Court has to find a rationale to support the new ruling, and often review statutory history, constitutional text, secondary sources, build coalitions with concurring opinions, address issues in dissenting options and amicus briefs, and lay out road maps for the lower courts to address ancillary issues that may arise with application of the new ruling - generate longer opinions, I don’t know what else I can tell you.
Four justices of the supreme Court disagree with you.. Also, the majority opinion of the recent case was not short. The original opinion was based on very old English common law which is a weird foundation for immigration and citizenship law. The supreme Court revisits its mistakes not infrequently and there is no reason to give a great deal of deference to the older opinion, particularly since the most respected justice of that Court dissented.
Your vocabulary seems to be limited. Maybe you might substitute idiot or lunatic for moron when you engage in your simpleton name calling. I would refer you to thesaurus.com for assistance with the English language and your name calling.
You are too stupid to be called anything other than a moron. You are embarassing yourself in this thread and everyone is laughing at your stupidity. Calling you a halfwit would be an insult to fractions.
Last edited:
