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

.
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.

Originally Posted by johnwk

.
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.

Okay ... so will this decision be overturned?

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

Okay ... so will this decision be overturned?

It certainly should because it is obviously a glaring threat to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, not to mention the devastating social and economic consequences which are also involved.

As I have previously demonstrated, Roberts’ claim that the members of the 39th Congress, when crafting the Fourteenth Amendment, decided to incorporated English jus soli into the amendment’s citizenship clause is pretentious, speculative and rests on supposition and implication alone. In fact, when one reviews the day-to-day debates of the 39th Congress, the phrase “jus soli” is nowhere to be found. And suggesting as Roberts does, that the “same groups included (and excluded) by jus soli were included (and excluded)" by the members of the 39th Congress when crafting the Fourteenth Amendment, and that “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” fall within the category of being included within United States natural-born citizenship, is inventing a right not found in the Constitution, which is exactly what Justice Harry Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade.

Why would any member of the 39th Congress have cause to think of granting such a right to “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” when there was no such thing as illegal entrant foreign nationals, nor U.S. temporary visa holders at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being crafted? If any restrictions on immigration existed, it was then regulated by State authority. Roberts’ contention, that the members of the 39th Congress decided to grant the privilege of such citizenship, is irrefutably without foundation.

Justice Roberts’ entire argument which creates a right not found in our Constitution is based on a fictitious and fraudulent claim that members of the 39th Congress, when crafting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, decided to incorporate English jus soli into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

It is absolutely sickening that Roberts has invented a right not found in our Constitution, nor knowingly and willfully adopted by the American people under Article V, or enacted by their elected representatives ___ a right which not only threatens the general welfare of the United States, inflicts devastating social and economic consequences upon American citizens, but has already turned American citizens into taxed slaves to pay for the economic and social needs of the offspring of temporary foreign visitors and illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

.

see: 1776, Not 1608: What the Supreme Court Got Wrong on Birthright Citizenship:

"The disagreement between the majority and the dissent is therefore not ultimately about Blackstone, Calvin’s Case, or even Wong Kim Ark. It is about what the American Revolution accomplished. Did it merely transfer sovereignty from the king to the people while leaving the English understanding of political membership intact? Or did it reject that understanding and replace it with citizenship grounded in consent, allegiance, and membership in the American political community?"

.

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.