Duh.Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑ That mark levin is one sharp cookie.
Those dullards on the SCOTUS could learn something, dipping into his show.
Heck, they could probably even call in to get more thoroughly schooled.
You forgot Bruen...Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑ Kind of hard to deny, though. That IS new.
No one was confused about the age of the Amendment.
So, if I understand the context, the 14th was NOT primarily intended to facilitate the parents of anchor babies?RebelGator » Today, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑ 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!
Careful. The threameister doesn't like TOO much context...Huey » Today, 7:03 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
Explain that.Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑ Another bold stand.
Why must you wonder?
irrelevant.
Very well-slapped, sir. My hat is tipped.Huey » Today, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
False, bitch. He just showed you a class of people to whom it does not apply.Blackvegetable » Today, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑ The crux is the plain, unambiguous, language of the Amendment.
As have you.Blackvegetable » Today, 8:40 am » wrote: ↑
YOUR argument is qualified by "primarily". You declined, of course,to elaborate on "secondarily".
Before you are obliged to dance away this heartache, can we first agree to an objective fact?Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑ As have you.
You were shown a class of people to whom it did not apply - which put skids under your absolutism.
Your insipid response was a one-word panty dance: "Irrelevant."
Pleased to see you've found your level..
Fetch your favorite condiments..Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Explain that.
How is it even possible that the exclusion of diplomat's schildren is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of contextualizing?
You're having your threat taken from you, son.
An objective fact like rocks are hard, water is wet, and Bruce Jenner is a man?Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Before you are obliged to dance away this heartache, can we first agree to an objective fact?
Y'know, you can only load up for so long before it's obvious you're bluffing.
He put my response to you in the peanut gallery.RebelGator » 06 Apr 2026, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑ 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!
Who gave him a million greenies anyway?Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑ He put my response to you in the peanut gallery.
You should be insulted that he left your post stand.
It means he is not intimidated.
The *** has never spent. You get greenies in many ways - posting is one. JUST POSTING. Then there's getting answered.
Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑ He put my response to you in the peanut gallery.
You should be insulted that he left your post stand.
It means he is not intimidated.
Are Embassies considered the sovereign land of the host nation?Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2026, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑ An objective fact like rocks are hard, water is wet, and Bruce Jenner is a man?
That kind of objective fact?
You tell me, unicorn believer. I'd have to have a gander at what the gender confused believe an objective fact.
Yes, but the hospitals where diplomats' babies are born are considered sovereign American soil.Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Are Embassies considered the sovereign land of the host nation?

Yes.. (Short answer for CP)Blackvegetable » 06 Apr 2026, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Are Embassies considered the sovereign land of the host nation?