tvc184

Better hurry up and say what you feel quickly. According to Biden (or his Puppetmasters), Trump is dismantling the Constitution. 😎

Except when you can’t define a woman because you’re not a biologist… 🤣🤣🤣

Are y’all that blind? Who doesn’t associate smoking hot women advertising in the free market with the slaughtering of millions of people based on race and religion??? ….. and they wonder why they are doing so poorly in the polls. 🤣🤣🤣

Sure they have and more than once. You just don’t like the answer. They might overturn or clarify earlier rulings but they most definitely have ruled. I have posted this more than once but in Elk v Wilkins the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American Indian born in Montana on US soil, was not an American citizen. Even though born in the US, Elk was not a citizen because he was a Native American and owed his allegiance to another country, that of the Winnebago Indians. Elk later moved to Nebraska and registered to vote. He was denied as he was not a US citizen. Elk surd claiming that because of the Fourteenth Amendment and he was born on US soil (as a Native American no less), he was a citizen. Elk even renounced any allegiance to the Winnebago Nation. The Supreme Court said that it doesn’t matter, you are not an American citizen. It was such a landmark ruling that 40 years later, the US Congress enacted a federal law, under their constitutional authority, giving American Indians citizenship at birth. The Fourteenth Amendment did not so it took an act of Congress to make Native Americans, Americans. Even today Native Americans have sovereignty on reservations as independent nations. They can have their own laws and courts outside control of US law and hold jurisdiction over Native Americans who are on reservation land. In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on US soil to two Chinese citizens was an American at birth but his parents were lawfully in the US. So while you have the right not to agree with the Supreme Court, they most definitely have ruled. Just like Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld separate but equal laws on race was later overturned by Brown v Board of Education and Roe v. Wade upholding abortion rights was later overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson WHO, the Supreme Court could in an upcoming decision overturn Elk and clarify Wong Kim Ark I made exactly that prediction in this forum weeks ago. The Supreme Court would take the case and essentially modify Wong Kim Ark and declare a person born on US soil has birthright citizenship. To say that the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled is simply not correct.

The Supreme Court has a different opinion.

Only if his mother was an illegal alien. Did she sneak into this country?

The line according to the Constitution is drawn by Congress as stated by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress sets the laws on naturalization. I don’t feel like looking up current law but by law passed by Congress, even if born overseas to at least one American parent who is currently living in the US then I believe a child is a US citizen at birth but it has to be reported to the US embassy or consulate. The term anchor baby is about a child born on US soil to people who entered the country illegally. The anchor referd to a parent who unlawfully entered the country but is lawfully trying to stay due to the child being a US citizen. That is the “anchor”. As in, I am anchored to the US now because my child is a citizen. Baron Trump was born on US soil to an American parent married to an alien lawfully in this country. There was no anchor needed. He was a citizen at birth by US law and the Constitution. The premise is ridiculous.

This appears to essentially be what caused the Michael Morton Act in Texas playing out in front of us. In Brady v. Maryland the Supreme Court ruled that exculpatory evidence (tending to show not guilty) must be turned over to the defendant. Brady was charged with taking part in a robbery and murder. He confessed to the robbery but said that his accomplice was solely responsible for the murder. A jury convicted Brady of robbery and murder. Later it was discovered that the accomplice had already confessed to the murder but the prosecution withheld that evidence from the jury. Oops! So under the Supreme Court Brady Rule, exculpatory evidence must be turned over to the defense. The prosecution, however, gets to determine what it thinks is exculpable. Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murder in Texas where the prosecution withheld evidence. The prosecution basically said, we didn’t think that evidence was important so we didn’t give it to the defense. Because of this unseen evidence, Texas passed the Michael Morton Act that requires turning over all police evidence to the defense and not making a determination on what the prosecution thinks is important. So like a jury in the Michael Morton trial, it appears or is claimed that the bipartisan committee never saw some of the evidence. In Michael Morton’s case the jury rendered a verdict that seemed reasonable….. until the hidden evidence was discovered. Did the same happen in the bipartisan committee? That is the accusation but the Democrats aren’t interested in hearing the evidence for obvious reasons. Like the Michael Morton case, where a man was wrongfully convicted of murder, the Democrats are apparently satisfied with, “Oh well, it’s the evidence that we had at the time, case closed”.

As evidence to what I stated, you have shown that the name Redskin is hateful, as deemed by….. National Congress of American INDIANS So the people who claim to be offended by the name Indians, in their own national organization, call themselves Indians? Imagine…. Head of the NCAI: I represent the American Indians and we would like to discuss issues. Representative: Okay, what do the Indians want to discuss? NCAI: Don’t you dare call us Indians!! We are Indians! Representative: Huh? Like I said a couple of years ago in this thread, if you’re looking to be offended, you’ll find it.

Yes, that is the diversion. When it’s all you have left…..

Yet another post where you demonstrate a lack of being able to follow along. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to quote someone else.

I didn’t mention Redskins. i answered a comment about Indians. Reading is FUNdamental. .

Since it’s how they refer to each other and their own organizations……

He should be singing about Guam capsizing.

This is another visual stunt like Pelosi kneeling in the kente. It’s about identity and visual effects. It’s even better when they break out in songs where they make up the lyrics as they go. 🤣🤣🤣

Yep. Wish I could do graphics.

In somewhat of a follow up, Monday the Supreme Court issued an emergency ruling that blocked a Biden appointed federal judge who ordered Trump to stop downsizing the Department of Education.

You kniw, put on some wader, grab a rake and start sifting through the debris to help and locate bodies…. while surrounded by a dozen SS agents.

Hear! Hear!

That’s par for the course…. 🤣🤣🤣

The laws of self-defense are enacted by a legislature whether state or federal. Trump cannot unilaterally make his own laws. Whether an officer (or anyone else) who used force or deadly force to protect himself complied with self defense laws, is up to the court system. Trump is in my opinion making a political statement but in a way reaffirming the right of self defense. The question for a future jury might be, is a person throwing a brick through a vehicle window a threat to cause death…. OR serious bodily injury? From every state law that I have read on deadly force in self defense, it doesn’t require a belief of being about to die to justify it. It requires the reasonable belief that serious injury might happen. Texas calls it serious, bodily injury, I have read some states that use the phrase, grievous bodily injury, etc. If a guy is about to put out your eye with a rock, the loss of an eye under Texas law is serious bodily injury. It would be the same for most broken bones.

This should be simple but apparently not. There are three branches of government in the Constitution for the separation of powers. One of those is the Executive Branch which is the president and everyone that answers to the president. Article II starts with: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Trump fired some bureaucrats from his administration. A federal judge stepped in and said you can’t do that and issued an injunction. The federal judge acted like the Executive Branch is like a union and the head of the Executive Branch, the president, has no control over who serves him without just cause… as approved the the Judicial Branch. An appeal to the Ninth Circus got the same result with a 2-1 vote that the Constitution was wrong and the executive Power doesn’t lie with the president but the Judicial Branch who gets to determine if the president can fire his own bureaucrats. Hmmmmm…. can we say the separation of powers? So an appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in an 8-1 ruling staying the injunction. The ruling was that the government would likely win if the case was fought in trial and then all the way to the Supreme Court where Article II says that the POWER of the Executive Branch will be in a president. Even Kagan and Sotomayor even agreed that yeah, that’s in the very first sentence of Article II. The only dissent was from, you guessed it, Brown Jackson. She is a kook. Her opinion is that the president doesn’t have complete control over the entire Executive Branch…. as is listed in the Constitution. If this was a private enterprise company and the owner wanted to fire an employee, the owner could not do so unless a judge agrees? No wonder she couldn’t define a woman..…..🤣🤣🤣

When you have Democrat members of Congress calling for violence….

The Senate version passed the House on a 218 - 214 vote. On to the next agenda….