All Activity

You bring up a good point. They wrote it anyway? In other words, if it was written and ratified, there was a reason. So let’s look at the at the citizenship clause. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States Note that it does not say that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. They added the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Like your question, they wrote it anyway? Was it merely a meaningless afterthought or did it mean something? In the Supreme Court ruling in Elk, they said that the phrase certainly meant something. Basically it was who is your allegiance to or which country were you a part of? John Elk was born in US territory on American soil but since he was part of a recognized Indian Nation, so even though born in the US, was not a citizen. It took an act of Congress, not the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling, to make Native Americans, American. So: 1. Was the phrase about being under the jurisdiction thereof just wasted words or did it have meaning? 2. Why didn’t the clause simply say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens”? That surely would have ended any debate. 3. Looking at the Constitution and the meaning of words, just like you brought up, why did the Supreme Court deny John Elk citizenship? If it was so clear, it should have been an easy ruling for Elk, not against him. 4. If it was so clear cut, why did it take decades later for the US Congress to make Native Americans all Americans as birthright citizens by federal law?

🤦‍♂️

I don’t know what is up with my Fox news capabilities. I can’t play your video. I found this one for those who might experience the same browser problem….

Barbers Hill run rules Pflugerville Hendrickson in game 1 12-0

🍿

Did Nederland even get a hit. Could have given a bunt single in the 1st. Winning run in 6th should have been an error on 3rd baseman. I can’t recall any other hits. Baseball is funny, got outplayed but won the game. Their bats better come alive or they will lose this series. They did play very good defense and the young pitcher is tough I have to give them a big positive for that, however the offense was not good. I have watched all their playoff games and the defense has been pretty darn good except for the loss to Montgomery. The offense has been weaker than well water

Even though my team was on the losing end, this is the kind of game I like to watch….a pitching duel. I think Garcia saved the day for the Rangers with some excellent catches. CF made a heckuva catch also. For my Stros, you won’t see a SS play any better than Peña’s sliding grab over 2nd base, turn and fire. Unbelievable.

Wow had this Kid chose the other Beaumont High school we wouldnt be having this conversation. Or anywhere but BU. Old BISD rule used to punish any athlete bypassing or leaving the West-End school to attend BU would cost you a year of Eligbility. Just an observation back in the day footbal great Christian Michael was a rock throw from Ozen chose to attend the West-End school nobody cried file. Many other examples as well. If the Jones kid bypassed the other school what Coach would want that kid on his team. Out of character for a coach to hinder/hurt the opportunities of a player because he didnt chose to play in your program. JMO...

There’s an educated answer if I ever saw one. No comment on anything I posted. Typical.

Brookeland- 18 Avery- 0 Final Brookeland Advances

Lumberton won game 1 9-0

Lumberton won game 1 9-0

Game 1 Lake Creek- 10 Nederland- 0 Final

Game 1 B.H.- 2 Angleton- 0 Final

Game 1 Bridge City 4 La Grange Final

BH takes Game One 2-0. MB pitched a great game. Held Angleton to a two hitter until the 7th.

Hunter pitches a 3 hit gem 9 ks gives up 1 mistake and loses 1-0 on a dinger

Game 1 Whitney- 5 O.F.- 2 Final

Game 1 Lumberton- 9 Lampasas- 0 Final

Game 1 B.H.- 12 Hendrickson- 0 Final

You just don’t get it, do you? Below is from the Congressional Record and what is being discussed as a backdrop issue of this specific case. Read the bolded. There is some evidence to support the thought that automatic citizenship wasn’t meant for the bolded below. For the first almost 80 years after the 14th Amendment was written, citizenship was treated differently than now. More recent tradition and practice for over a century says automatic citizenship for almost everyone. Tradition doesn’t necessarily make it correct. Also doesn’t make it incorrect. I’m done discussing this with you and wasting my time. Just read the bolded below. It’s the words of the author of the 14th Amendment. Sen. Jacob Howard, Republican of Michigan, proposed the Citizenship Clause and stated on May 30, 1866:

[Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

When evil is challenged with truth and power, it runs away. Trump is anything but dumb. Try again.

I actually agree. I dont like AI

The writers didn't want it, yet they wrote it anyway?