Liberal Forum

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.”



Morans?

Ammosexuals?
 
 

Recall all that jibber jabber **** about "Historical Context"?

Watch...

One of the sharpest exchanges came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who pushed back after Sauer suggested the framers of the 14th Amendment could not have foreseen how “we’re in a new world now,” with billions of people “one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” 

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” Roberts replied.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/panicked- ... g-hearing/
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 6:15 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 6:15 am

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.”



Morans?

Ammosexuals?

Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment's primary purpose was to guarantee citizenship and civil rights to formerly enslaved people, ensuring equal protection under the law and due process. It forced Southern states to recognize Black Americans' rights, limited the power of states to violate citizen liberties, and addressed post-war financial/political issues. 

Get some context, Simpleton!

RebelGator » 06 Apr 2026, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 6:28 am

Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment's primary purpose was to guarantee citizenship and civil rights to formerly enslaved people, ensuring equal protection under the law and due process. It forced Southern states to recognize Black Americans' rights, limited the power of states to violate citizen liberties, and addressed post-war financial/political issues. 

Get some context, Simpleton!

 

Sure...

 

Post it...

       


primary



You feed from the same bag as @Huey  ...Who died on that hillock recently. 
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 6:15 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 6:15 am

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.”



Morans?

Ammosexuals?

MAGA was born in Dumbazz, USA.
 

RebelGator » 06 Apr 2026, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 6:28 am

Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment's primary purpose was to guarantee citizenship and civil rights to formerly enslaved people, ensuring equal protection under the law and due process. It forced Southern states to recognize Black Americans' rights, limited the power of states to violate citizen liberties, and addressed post-war financial/political issues. 

Get some context, Simpleton!

So do you have a copy of your Birth Certificate?

Were you born in the State of Unawareness?
 
 

I guess you have to wonder if those who enter the country to strictly give birth owe complete, direct allegiance to the United States and be under its full sovereign authority at birth. As far as the child, who knows. Notice that diplomats children do not get citizenship.

AI Overview
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause defines who gains birthright citizenship, meaning a person must owe complete, direct allegiance to the United States and be under its full sovereign authority at birth. It excludes children of foreign diplomats, hostile occupiers, and, historically, certain Native American tribal members, ensuring they are not automatically U.S. citizens.

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

I guess you have to wonder if those who enter the country to strictly give birth owe complete, direct allegiance to the United States and be under its full sovereign authority at birth. As far as the child, who knows. Notice that diplomats children do not get citizenship.

AI Overview
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause defines who gains birthright citizenship, meaning a person must owe complete, direct allegiance to the United States and be under its full sovereign authority at birth. It excludes children of foreign diplomats, hostile occupiers, and, historically, certain Native American tribal members, ensuring they are not automatically U.S. citizens.

You can lead him to water, but making him drink requires a fire hose down his throat.

Huey » 06 Apr 2026, 7:03 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 7:03 am

I guess you have to wonder if those who enter the country to strictly give birth owe complete, direct allegiance to the United States and be under its full sovereign authority at birth. As far as the child, who knows. Notice that diplomats children do not get citizenship.

AI Overview
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause defines who gains birthright citizenship, meaning a person must owe complete, direct allegiance to the United States and be under its full sovereign authority at birth. It excludes children of foreign diplomats, hostile occupiers, and, historically, certain Native American tribal members, ensuring they are not automatically U.S. citizens.

 who knows

Another bold stand.

Why must you wonder?

Notice that diplomats children do not get citizenship.

irrelevant. 

Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 7:15 am

Another bold stand.

Why must you wonder?


irrelevant. 

 

No, it is the crux of the matter.  It is not as black and white as you wish to make it.  That is why we have courts.   

Huey » 06 Apr 2026, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 7:27 am

No, it is the crux of the matter.  It is not as black and white as you wish to make it.  That is why we have courts.

The only answers you accept are the white ones.


 

Huey » 06 Apr 2026, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 7:27 am

No, it is the crux of the matter.  It is not as black and white as you wish to make it.  That is why we have courts.

The crux is the plain, unambiguous, language of the Amendment. 

 It is not as black and white as you wish to make it. 

How do you read it?

I don't see it being any less so than the abbreviated version of the 2nd to which you cling, bitterly.

That is why we have courts.

You mean Case law...

But in the hierarchy of Constitutional interpretation, where does Levin rank....say, telative to SCOTUS? 

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 8:17 am

The crux is the plain, unambiguous, language of the Amendment. 


How do you read it?

I don't see it being any less so than the abbreviated version of the 2nd to which you cling, bitterly.


You mean Case law...

But in the hierarchy of Constitutional interpretation, where does Levin rank....say, telative to SCOTUS? 

 

 

I am not a lawyer and neither are you.  I have already told how I read it and why the arguments.

As far as the 2nd, I am not a  purest on that.  Never have been.  

As far as Levin I have not heard him in years.  So I couldn't tell you.

Huey » 06 Apr 2026, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 8:32 am

I am not a lawyer and neither are you.  I have already told how I read it and why the arguments.

As far as the 2nd, I am not a  purest on that.  Never have been.  

As far as Levin I have not heard him in years.  So I couldn't tell you.

Tiny,

YOUR argument is qualified by "primarily". You declined, of course,to elaborate on "secondarily".

As far as the 2nd, I am not a  purest on that.  Never have been.  

You're primarily with Heller and Bruen.


I should have guessed..

As far as Levin I have not heard him in years.  So I couldn't tell you.

Perfect!

It was obviously a trick question...
 

Blackvegetable » 51 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

51 minutes ago

Tiny,

YOUR argument is qualified by "primarily". You declined, of course,to elaborate on "secondarily".

 

Where is your elaboration on anything? I see your copy/pasted elaboration from someone else, but where is YOUR analysis?

Yeah, that's what I thought. 

1. Turn it on me. Refuse to provide his own thoughts...oh wait. No, he will. It will be "you are a moran."           

Vegas » 06 Apr 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 9:27 am

Where is your elaboration on anything? 

Looks like a question...

You're in arrears...

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Looks like a question...

You're in arrears...

Yep. It does. We both know how you feel about questions. They scare you ****. 
 

Vegas » 06 Apr 2026, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 9:36 am

Yep. It does. We both know how you feel about questions. They scare you ****.

You go right to hiding behind a question. Come out from your safe space and take me on like a man. 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

 

Copies me again. Safe space. QED. Prove I spew as many questions as you do a day. Go on, I'll wait. 

You literally prove my claims about you for me. 

Vegas » 06 Apr 2026, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2026, 9:40 am

Copies me again. 

Where's that example?