Documenting America's Descent Into Autocracy: Nazi Fascism Over-Taking US

[Jamalisms]

4 hours ago, TitansPDO said:

Under our system of government, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Not the executive or legislative branches. 

 

Don't like birthright citizenship, then pass a constitutional amendment repudiating the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent. What do you think the Fourteenth Amendment overturned? A U.S. Supreme Court Decision that most U.S. citizens should be vaguely familiar with....

 

The other alternative (and easier) is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider and overrule their own precedent. Trump issuing an executive order ending or attempting to end birthright citizenship is probably the avenue they'll pursue given the favorable political leanings of the Court for Trump, as it would inevitably lead to a federal lawsuit to prevent its enforcement. 

 

Don't like the Supreme Court's decision on abortion? Pass a constitutional amendment. 

 

... or engage in a decades-long court packing scheme.

[Little Earl]

8 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Don't like the Supreme Court's decision on abortion? Pass a constitutional amendment. 

 

... or engage in a decades-long court packing scheme.

Wouldn’t have come down to that if the Democrats hadn’t packed the court with a bunch of libtards that made up law to decide Roe v Wade.

[Jamalisms]

1 minute ago, Little Earl said:

Wouldn’t have come down to that if the Democrats hadn’t packed the court with a bunch of libtards that made up law to decide Roe v Wade.

 

"We wouldn't have done something wrong if you just did what we wanted in the first place."

[Little Earl]

3 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

"We wouldn't have done something wrong if you just did what we wanted in the first place."

What was wrong with what Republicans did?   Correcting a very flawed ruling that the left loved?

[Jamalisms]

Ends justify means.

[tgo]

[TitansPDO]

17 hours ago, charleytolar said:

from AI:

 

" a new federal statute can override a Supreme Court decision if the Court's decision was based on the interpretation of a federal statute, meaning Congress can essentially "correct" the Court's interpretation by passing a new law that explicitly addresses the issue; however, if the Supreme Court ruling was based on the Constitution itself, a new statute cannot override it and would require a constitutional amendment to change the ruling. "

 

What to believe?!

 

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, huh? What I wrote is nearly identical to your AI

 

Here is what you quoted....

 

20 hours ago, TitansPDO said:

 

And again, a federal statute (even a new one) cannot override a U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting a Constitutional provision. The only thing Congress can do in that situation is to pass a constitutional amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment is obviously not a federal statute....

 

If this were a federal statutory issue, then Congress would have much more leeway. 

 

 

Let me try this again so you may comprehend.

 

Since you clearly failed basic civics while in school, a constitutional provision is not the same as a statute. Here is google AI  explaining the difference for you:

 

A "constitutional provision" refers to a specific rule or clause within a constitution, which is the foundational document outlining the fundamental principles and structure of a government, while a "statute" is a law enacted by a legislative body, meaning it's a more detailed, specific rule created within the framework established by the constitution; essentially, a statute cannot contradict the broader principles set forth in the constitution.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional provision, i.e. it is not a statute. From your own AI generated summary that you clearly did not read/comprehend/understand:

 

"if the Supreme Court ruling was based on the Constitution itself, a new statute cannot override it and would require a constitutional amendment to change the ruling."

 

Now let's apply this statement to your birthright citizenship nonsense. The U.S. Supreme Court holding regarding birthright citizenship was based on the text and an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a constitutional provision. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898) ("The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.").  Since this Supreme Court ruling "was based on the Constitution itself (the Fourteenth Amendment), a new statute cannot override it  and would require a constitutional amendment to change the ruling." 

 

So at the end of the day, you engaged in a major self-own and demonstrated your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension. 

 

I hope you enjoyed your basic civics lesson. You may continue being the dumbfuck of Titansreport....

 

Edited November 20, 2024 by TitansPDO

[Strunk'sDessert]

Goddammit, I wasn't going to post in this forum for awhile, but I have to give applause to @TitansPDO on this.

 

Tolar just walking in, head held high, Dunning-Kruger hard-core with his AI answer. The practicing attorney giving him an answer he doesn't like, so he'll either double down or slump away. 

 

Ah, such an epitome of what this country has come to...

[Number9]

They never meant for this to happen.  They had it all.  Republicans and Democrats.  The R were for the rich and had more liberal ideas about equality of all people.  The D were for the working man and government protections.(simple explanation)  Times changed and they did a switcheroo.  The D became the party with more liberal ideas and the R incorporated racism into conservatism.

 

The R and the D have got along famously.  The people complain, but continue to vote for them.  They go in with a net worth of 1-2M and leave worth 20M+.  They put on a good show.  We know all about it, but we love our guy.  20M?  

 

Trump came around blowing the R dog whistle with a bullhorn and added a new group.  The Swamp.  WTF.  We knew about it, but we never labeled it.

 

DT wins the election.  

DT tried an insurrection after losing his second race.  

 

This time leading R's got together with D's to stop DT.  That's never happened!  Not since I have been observing politics.  The people who have been running our government since WW2 united to stop a viable political candidate.

 

He wins again.

 

 

[ChemEngr79]

9 hours ago, Strunk'sDessert said:

Ah, such an epitome of what this country has come to...

 

Yes, it seems like millions of uninformed people voted based on the memes they liked best on Twitter, and now we get to see how well our institutions hold up against a 4-year criminal onslaught against 200+ years of laws/norms.  

Edited November 20, 2024 by ChemEngr79

[OILERMAN]

 

 

 

 

[LongTimeFan]

So @TitansPDO if one Supreme Court made that ruling on birth right citizenship, I would assume a different Supreme Court can change it? 

 

IMO, the birth right citizenship problem is when migrants come here illegally, haven't been to their Court date to determine if they can stay, have a child, and then are determined they can't stay. Should the child be considered a US citizen? By law, I would assume the child is a citizen. But the parents aren't. So the parents should have to leave. Then it's THE PARENT'S CHOICE whether to leave the child with someone else or take the child back.

 

Then I would imagine it gets tricky with what benefits the child can get if the parents take him/her back to their country.

 

The real solution, whether people want to admit it, is that you can't let migrants into the country unless they are vetted, have all paperwork for their asylum claim and are adjudication at the border, or better yet, in their country of origin.

[charleytolar]

10 hours ago, TitansPDO said:

 

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, huh? What I wrote is nearly identical to your AI

 

Here is what you quoted....

Take another run at it, you said "cannot", my AI said "can" ... "based on an interpretation."

 

You are being more haughty than Mike Vrabel!

[WG53]

14 hours ago, Little Earl said:

What was wrong with what Republicans did?   Correcting a very flawed ruling that the left loved?

Oh look the myth of Republicans being for small government and personal liberties debunked in real time.

[TitansPDO]

3 hours ago, LongTimeFan said:

So @TitansPDO if one Supreme Court made that ruling on birth right citizenship, I would assume a different Supreme Court can change it? 

 

 

 

Yes, although the doctrine of Stare decisis exists to prevent the arbitrary overruling of established precedent, that doctrine is not an absolute bar, and as the current Supreme Court has demonstrated in some very notable recent decisions, they do overrule their own precedent whether one agrees with the decisions or not. The same is true for the highest court(s) in every State as well (Texas has two highest courts, one for criminal and one for civil). 

 

A good historical example from the U.S. Supreme Court is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overruling Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal").  Plessy was precedent for nearly 60 years before it was rightly overruled. A different one is Lawrence v. Texas that declared the criminal statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional overruled a prior U.S. Supreme Case, Bowers v. Hardwick, that upheld a Georgia sodomy statue criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. 

 

The people who are put on the U.S. Supreme Court are very important. And  this is something that the conservative  movement realized over 40 years ago.