Judicial Statutory and the 14th Amendment

Using the stroke of the pen may undo the stroke of the pen.

This simple motto is in its two separate clauses, the nursery and gallows of progressive judicial activism that were once forced to be in the uninformed population. The opposite judge’s whimsical social change based solely on the judge’s whimsical social changes may be revoked, and there is no reasonable reason to get a reaction.

The left loves judicial progressivism because it is a tailor-made approach to implementing social engineering from top to bottom. This has always been the main means of social engineering, but when social engineering is done by the monarch’s religious conversion based on things like that, this is why tribal wholesale or legislation adopts Christianity, things like the Civil Rights Act are legal. There is a feeling that the wheels of the country are turning their due way. The monarch takes his sovereignty and makes decisions.

But with judicial activism, you have no legal veneer, because the court is not, nor is it sovereignty in any society. Power is sovereign. Whether the power resides in a popular will or the king’s divine empowerment, it is not on the bench. “[The Chief Justice]made the decision and now let him execute his decision,” said U.S. President Andrew Jackson. He had to execute the ruling and the judges would not take off their robes and look at their orders. And, when a court issues an order, the new court can use the exact same power as the first established power to revoke it.

With President-elect Donald Trump’s second victory, he will almost certainly have a chance to appoint at least one, but there may be more, the Supreme Court will be in the next term. Some young conservative judges may retire to ensure that Democrats have no chance to appoint their successors, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not do so before his death. There may be some suitable vacancy between the free judges, and they are not spring chickens either.

What will happen to these victorious spoils? Two things I think might be assigned are Obergefell v. Hodgesthe case enacted a national gay marriage, and the 14th Amendment provides the assumption that citizenship of the right to birth for all people born on the magical dirt in the United States.

eliminate Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges It’s easy to remove. The decision was ridiculous in its reasoning, and it was originally a progressive high-water mark that the Barack Obama administration tried to reshape the country. Finding the basic right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution is a simple wish. yes no Based on a solid foundation for establishing full faith and credit requirements for all other states based on countries that have achieved homosexual marriage in 2015; Once was Based on a desire to “basic rights” that no one knows before 2015.

That is, the Constitution already has a requirement that each country grant “full faith and credibility” to other states. By 2015, 37 states had legalized homosexual marriage through conventional legislative procedures. The courts do not have to determine that all states must fully believe and credible in homosexual marriages formulated by states that allow them and recognize marriages, but instead hastily. It is determined in its efforts to show its progressive goodwill that a fundamental right hidden in the Constitution has never been noticed before.

How will this be undo? Simple: The second Trump court will challenge the case Obergefell v. Hodges The justice will now say, “No, obviously there is no hidden right.” Wash your hands, go home, have supper, and prepare it.

Setting records directly in the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment provides assumptions for right-to-birth citizenship will be more difficult because there is more than a decade of inertia behind it. But there is a will that seems to be a way. But what is that? “All people born or naturalized in the United States, and bound by their jurisdiction, are American citizens and the country in which they live.” It seems clear, isn’t it? If you were born in U.S. jurisdiction, then you are a citizen, the end of the story.

Except no, of course not. In practice, three-quarters of three-quarters are not that. That annoying subordinate clause “and bound by its jurisdiction” seems to simply mean that if the United States can impose its laws on you, then you are eligible.

However, that doesn’t mean that. That doesn’t mean until the executive body, what I’m talking about, starts many times, actually starts issuing citizenship papers to anchor the baby. What exactly happened then? Well, America has been doing what every state has been doing since ancient times, and that is its own people.

One of the main makers of the 14th Amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull is Extremely clear Its purpose is to give guarantees of citizenship to free black slaves in the south, not just anyone who happens, because “bound by jurisdiction” means Allegiance. A freed black slave whose ancestors had been loyal to the United States for 300 years, and was loyal to them in a way that Mexico’s illegal immigrants do not have at all.

United States v Wong Kim ARKusually considered a case that defines the right to birth citizenship, has not been decided for another 30 years. When it turned out, the result was that Wong, the son of a Chinese law resident, no longer loyal to the Chinese empire.

Even this decision did not grant citizenship to children of Native American tribes, which took place in 1924 special legislation. Why? Because tribes are sovereigns; their members are not loyal to the United States first, but to their tribes. This is why Native American tribes also believe that when the United States waged war with Germany in 1918, it could also make its own war statement.

So even today, Native Americans are not citizens of the United States, nor citizens of their tribes, because the 14 Amendments or due to United States v Wong Kim ARK. Instead, they are due to special legislation that allows subsidiaries of subsidiaries of vassal states to become citizens of the country. The 14th Amendment’s so-called right to birth citizenship is illegal and foreigner provision is not like the popular left-wing publications and commentators.

Why do this? Even today, it does not apply to children of foreign ambassadors who happen to be born in the United States during their parents’ tenure. Why? Because their parents do not owe the loyalty of the country, they are not bound by their jurisdiction. However, based on the view of popularism of the 14th Amendment.

Citizens with the right to birth must end

Consider the ridiculousness of nesting in such a largest position. Suppose an actual invading army landed on the U.S. coast and established a beach base. Among the Army’s camp followers, they intentionally brought 10,000 pregnant women. After establishment, they induce labor, resulting in every woman giving birth. According to the current free understanding of the 14th Amendment, the enemy camp now has at least 10,000 U.S. citizens. They were born illegally, yes, but they were still born here anyway. They are on our soil and are therefore bound by our laws. They are citizens.

Can we attack that armed camp? Remember that without proper legal proceedings, the government cannot deprive U.S. citizens of their lives, freedoms or property. Would we refuse to attack the army that occupied our soil because it has American citizens inside? Or will we know that they are not American citizens, nor are they babies, and are they manipulation strategies to facilitate the extraction and requisition of resources from local people? Let readers understand it here.

Citizenship with the right to birth will end because it is not the intention of the text. It will end because it must Ending. In the opposite direction of abolishing the citizenship of reproductive rights, the ultimate conclusion is necessary: ​​everyone on Earth is a U.S. citizen, not yet known about it, or has not completed the correct paperwork at all. Not even wildly arguing.

For much of the last century, we have been enforcing laws and interests around the world. So, in a very real way, based on the current free understanding, the entire planet is bound by American jurisdiction, so everyone is a U.S. citizen of the waiter.

Is the United States, like all other countries that exist, composed of specific groups of people whose culture occupies a particular place? Or do you just need the right essay and stamps to be a economic zone, thus giving you the right to tame the land and build the bounty with your ancestors? This is a key question that Trump must answer decisively by seriously undermining anyone’s ability to be grafted into such vines.

I hope he has a constitution.

((Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.