Well argued. Of course, there's no way this de jure argument will become de facto reality until the US Government wants it to. Individuals, quite rightly I think, lack standing to challenge the citizenship of another individual. Such a case must be brought by the Government. And as we both know quite well, the people in positions to bring such cases have no desire to do so. And it's very much an open question whether our current judiciary, dominated as it is by Regime loyalists, would ever buy the argument even if a prosecutor were to make it. Which, again, they won't. Wouldn't be allowed to, even if some front-line AUSA wanted to.
Still, it's good to have this sort of thing out there, against the day--may it come quickly--when the Regime meets its well-deserved end.
it’s weird to me that you would start this with an image addressing “native americans”, when white Americans (a group that you seem to identify very strongly with) did not immigrate to the country in accordance with the laws of actual native americans, what does that make you?
The Founders saw birthright citizenship as a relic of feudalism. Keep that in mind with the soon to be mandatory registration for selective service. Be careful whom you wish to restrict citizenship to.
Lawyers are indeed a big part of the problem, ever perpetuated and reinforced by the infinitely complex laws they themselves create to keep their position secure. It is of utmost importance to find the thumbscrews to use against them to serve our interests as much as their own. More laws are not the answer.
Rule of law is one of the basic separators between a civilized country and a banana Republic.
To argue against being bound by law is to promote literal savagery.
That being said, when the left in this country no longer sees a need to be bound by the precedent of previous courts the right ward opposition needs to respond in kind.
I have long said that the right in this country needs to be willing to jettison stare decisis. The other side won't appreciate it until they are subject to its loss. The overturning of Roe v Wade was an excellent example of this.
Basically, grow some backbone(congress and courts) and follow the law(s) as written, by smarter and more forward thinking people, and QUT obfuscating through unelected bureaucracy!?! God Bless!!!
Well argued. Of course, there's no way this de jure argument will become de facto reality until the US Government wants it to. Individuals, quite rightly I think, lack standing to challenge the citizenship of another individual. Such a case must be brought by the Government. And as we both know quite well, the people in positions to bring such cases have no desire to do so. And it's very much an open question whether our current judiciary, dominated as it is by Regime loyalists, would ever buy the argument even if a prosecutor were to make it. Which, again, they won't. Wouldn't be allowed to, even if some front-line AUSA wanted to.
Still, it's good to have this sort of thing out there, against the day--may it come quickly--when the Regime meets its well-deserved end.
Thank you for elaborating on something that I was pondering about.
That’s what I thought about Niki Haley. How was she allowed to run. Wasn’t that why everyone freaked in Obama 🤷♀️
it’s weird to me that you would start this with an image addressing “native americans”, when white Americans (a group that you seem to identify very strongly with) did not immigrate to the country in accordance with the laws of actual native americans, what does that make you?
The Founders saw birthright citizenship as a relic of feudalism. Keep that in mind with the soon to be mandatory registration for selective service. Be careful whom you wish to restrict citizenship to.
Well reasoned and argued.
As long as you remain bound by Law you are the slave of lawyers.
The Constitution was a Political Pact, not Sacred Writ. Wise politically, Marshall made it slow poison legally and socially.
In any case the opposition cannot flaunt their lawlessness enough, so why remain slaves to a farce that has become obscene?
Our Borders insecure? Your very child’s nethers are insecure- quite legally.
Lawyers are indeed a big part of the problem, ever perpetuated and reinforced by the infinitely complex laws they themselves create to keep their position secure. It is of utmost importance to find the thumbscrews to use against them to serve our interests as much as their own. More laws are not the answer.
Rule of law is one of the basic separators between a civilized country and a banana Republic.
To argue against being bound by law is to promote literal savagery.
That being said, when the left in this country no longer sees a need to be bound by the precedent of previous courts the right ward opposition needs to respond in kind.
I have long said that the right in this country needs to be willing to jettison stare decisis. The other side won't appreciate it until they are subject to its loss. The overturning of Roe v Wade was an excellent example of this.
Stare at this decision: Let us be savages so we can be decent and sane, and men not slaves.
We will be.
Law is a lying contest, it will not stand.
F—- Rule by lawyers, this loathsome priesthood that covets all even children.
It’s over and 🤮 good riddance.
Basically, grow some backbone(congress and courts) and follow the law(s) as written, by smarter and more forward thinking people, and QUT obfuscating through unelected bureaucracy!?! God Bless!!!