Favorite team:New Orleans Saints 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:47366
Registered on:8/25/2015
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
Exactly. frick the politics.

The guy was literally compromised by a Chinese spy, cheating on his wife, and sexually assaulting his staff in plain view while people like Trump and Kavanaugh were getting their lives torn apart over OBVIOUSLY made up accusations. I’m done with the double standards.
A Republican governor won’t happen in California, but if it did, nothing would change. Nothing.

He needs to resign from politics in disgrace. I’m tired of republicans getting destroyed over decades old lies while democrats just shake their scandals off and survive.
If he’s unfit to be governor, how is he fit to be a congressman?

Do tell, filth.
Yet no calls for him to resign from Congress. So he’s unfit for governor of a state but completely ok to be a congressman?

Democrats and their fig apologists are complete slime
It’s interesting. Dems in California had no issue with him having affairs, cavorting with Chinese spies, or sexually assaulting his staff. But possibly delivering the governor’s mansion to a Republican was the unforgivable sin.
Whatever. It’s a 100% fact that dems would be screaming bloody murder over this had Trump done nothing.

This is why no one takes dems seriously
Powertool doesn’t care. He wants Trump to fail at any cost.
Many don’t know this, but Easter is not tied to a specific date on the calendar. It’s derived from Passover which is based on the lunar phases. In effect, the first night of the full moon, after the Spring equinox. Easter being the first Sunday after that full moon.

The preceding Friday has been the prevailing view for centuries.
quote:

That is, it would look for everything America isn't doing perfectly according to some ideal standard that doesn't exist


Conservatives have a big problem with this.
Jacob Merritt Howard, the senator who introduced the the "under the jurisdiction thereof" qualifier to the 14th amendment, clearly articulates in debate what that qualifier means, but the retards still insist it means something else.
The ruling was on the stay of deportation, but what makes the case relevant is that they were here illegally when the child was born, yet most of the justices (if not all) never questioned the citizenship of the child. The question is; were they right?
Certain posters will die on the hill of there being no lawfare.
I’m not sure there’s ever been a definitive ruling on what under the jurisdiction thereof specifically includes outside of a handful of examples. Just that pure birthright seems to have been the prevailing assumption underpinning these cases.
That’s been the interpretation forever. That doesn’t make it correct.

You could argue that Hintopulos entered legally, was withheld ashore for medical reasons, then immediately after the birth of the child and it was safe for her to do so, sought to remedy her immigration status in good faith. Under current law, you can file for an extension after the fact, if circumstances prevent you from doing so at the proper time.

But I agree that this case is likely the best angle for the left.
The 14th originally excluded native Americans and a congressional act undid that exclusion, so there’s that.
You are applying an interpretation. You’re not special.