Thread: S.C. will hand down opinion in Trump v. Barbara tomorrow, fundamental questions are

Today, Justice Roberts applied the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in order to impose his personal beliefs as the rule of law.


“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”


“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”


“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

Roberts writes: “And its principal author explained that its language was “simply declaratory of . . . the law of the land already.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2890 (Sen. Howard). Pp. 9–10.”

What Roberts cleverly omits is Howard’s full quote:


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Keep in mind that the meanings of the words “foreigner” and “alien” include illegal immigrants, while “ambassador” and “foreign minister” do not.


In addition, Roberts fraudulently indicates the Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context, from the English common law. And yet, the 39th Congress, by creating the qualifier “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, rejected English common law with respect to birthright citizenship.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Roberts writes: “And its principal author explained that its language was “simply declaratory of . . . the law of the land already.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2890 (Sen. Howard). Pp. 9–10.”
Keep in mind that the meanings of the words “foreigner” and “alien” include illegal immigrants, while “ambassador” and “foreign minister” do not.

So, does this decision mean that all illegals will NOT be given U.S. Citizenship?
Is it retroactive?

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

So, does this decision mean that all illegals will NOT be given U.S. Citizenship?
Is it retroactive?

The majority opinion means, American citizens will continue to be taxed slaves to pay for the social and economic needs of Anchor Babies. Of course, the majority doesn't care as they too live on the taxpayer's dime.




.

.


The intentional deception which Justice Roberts used when authoring his written opinion is most remarkable, but turns out to be the Achilles’ heel which exposes his judicial tyranny.

In reviewing Roberts’ WRITTEN OPINION, he rambles on and on, page after page, about centuries old English Common law, using it as a distraction and drawing attention to that part which bound all those born in “the king’s domain” as “natural-born” British subjects (jus soli birthright citizenship), and then, dwells on the Wong Kim Ark case.

Roberts then projects the presumptuous assertion that the 39th Congress, when crafting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, incorporated English jus soli into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, thus concluding the offspring of today’s illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are natural-born U.S. citizens.

The glaring problem with Roberts reasoning is, under our system of law, adhering to “the rules of the common law“(as distinguished from common law) is acknowledged in our Constitution (see the Seventh Amendment), and under “the rules of the common law” adhering to legislative intent is a fundamental principle as confirmed by Chief Justice Marshall who wrote in a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, that he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”

And yet, without substantiating his claim with actual evidence, Justice Roberts fabricates out of thin air that the 39th Congress, when crafting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, incorporated English jus soli into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. In fact, Justice Roberts’ entire argument is based on a fictitious and fraudulent claim that the 39th Congress, when crafting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, incorporated English jus soli into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of evidence to sufficiently conclude its drafters incorporated, or intended to incorporate, English jus soli into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. As such, Roberts’ conclusion is based upon unsubstantiated opinion, and determining if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil should be granted U.S. citizenship is still an open political question, which can only be lawfully addressed under Article V, or by the people’s elected representatives, meaning Congress or President, but not our unelected Supreme Court members.

Let us never forget our Supreme Court's forbidden ground, as summarized by Chief Justice Warren Burger: The Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians’ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,’ or ‘common sense.’ ... We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role. — Chief Justice Warren Burger, dissenting in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Originally Posted by johnwk

The majority opinion means, American citizens will continue to be taxed slaves to pay for the social and economic needs of Anchor Babies. Of course, the majority doesn't care as they too live on the taxpayer's dime.

See the articles Airborne just posted on the Jackpot Baby scam:
https://www.alipac.us/f9/us-territor...2-babi-440091/

https://www.alipac.us/f9/hundreds-co...n-babi-440090/

.

I’m still trying to figure out how Justice Roberts concluded that the 39th Congress, when crafting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, they decided to incorporate English jus soli into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. I cannot find a shred of evidence in the Congressional debates covering the making of the 14th Amendment to substantiate Roberts’ claim. Seems that Roberts made that crap up out of thin air which negates the legitimacy of he written opinion.

.
Justice Roberts’ written opinion is not legitimate because it is not in harmony with our Constitution, just like Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade was not legitimate, and was overturned because it invented a right not recognized by our constitution.

Roberts is attempting, in Trump v. Barbara, to create a right for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, which is not in harmony with the text of our Constitution, nor its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

.

I wonder if Justice Roberts was paid, perhaps by the Chinese Communist Party, to keep birth-tourism alive .

Roberts’ written opinion is so inconsistent with the actual legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, and comments made by members of the 39th Congress when the citizenship clause was being debated, it makes one wonder.

One thing for sure is, Roberts’ written opinion poses a very real threat to the general welfare of the United States and her CITIZENS.