March 29Mar 29 1 hour ago, CADNMALODU said:Not necessarily. That's your understanding. SCOTUS can do it in two ways. 1. Actively reinterpret it along the lines of Trump's EO, which is overruling the 1898 SCOTUS version. That basically upholding the EO.2. Strike it down sticking to the earlier interpretation.Can you tell this sc confirming based on constitution or eo
March 29Mar 29 Author 1 minute ago, Pavanonline said:NoCheck the handle. All posts are genuine news only.
March 29Mar 29 13 minutes ago, Junior_ said:@Pavanonline no bias eitherThey do a mix to make fools of gullible people
March 29Mar 29 My best guess is supreme court will upheld the birthright citizenship.Birthright citizenship was never meant as a free pass to have anchor babies to establish citizenship. It was for freed slaves to make things easier for the transition which means offsprings of illegals will have their citizenship revoked retroactively.
March 29Mar 29 Ori mee dumpal tega...as usual insignificant Indians kukkala hadavidi....it will stay period....all north and South American countries have birth right citizenship for a reason...it can't be taken just like that...it needs constitutional amendment not EO..
March 29Mar 29 8 hours ago, futureofandhra said:Can you tell this sc confirming based on constitution or eoAgain, birth right citizenship has come to existence because of the SCOTUS interpretation back in 1898 US vs Wong Kim Ark case. If SCOTUS reinterprets it to align with EO, that's setting a new precedent. It doesn't need a constitutional change.
March 29Mar 29 6 hours ago, Ballisticmissile said:Ori mee dumpal tega...as usual insignificant Indians kukkala hadavidi....it will stay period....all north and South American countries have birth right citizenship for a reason...it can't be taken just like that...it needs constitutional amendment not EO..Not necessarily. The way US has set it is based on British common law, and in the US vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) case the SCOTUS relied heavily on Calvin's case from English court ruling based on "just soli". Times changed. Brits now longer have "just soli" in the UK. They have changed that back in early 1980s. So who knows. If SCOTUS were to "reinterpret" the jurisdiction thereof clause based on originalist interpretation, that's upholding the EO. No constitutional amendment is needed.
March 29Mar 29 7 hours ago, ismartganesh said:My best guess is supreme court will upheld the birthright citizenship.Birthright citizenship was never meant as a free pass to have anchor babies to establish citizenship. It was for freed slaves to make things easier for the transition which means offsprings of illegals will have their citizenship revoked retroactively.Retroactive application is going to be very interesting thing to watch out for. Conservatives like that John C Eastman, commentaries on the Americanmind say the same thing.
March 29Mar 29 40 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:Retroactive application is going to be very interesting thing to watch out for. Conservatives like that John C Eastman, commentaries on the Americanmind say the same thing.Retro chesthe inka GC dates 2014 cross avavu. Every EB-2/3 case will have additional 2 dependent applications
March 29Mar 29 41 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:Retroactive application is going to be very interesting thing to watch out for. Conservatives like that John C Eastman, commentaries on the Americanmind say the same thing.Retro they can't if they do then chaos
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.