Does your cunt’s leader think he can rewrite the constitution at whim?

What are the chances?

Do you understand the word "amendment"?

Birthright citizenship is one interpretation but it's obviously not what the framers nor the writers of the 14th amendment intended.

Pretty funny when libs pretend to know or care about the constitution because their puppet masters care so much about letting in democrat voting anchor babies lol

No, for our Glorious Leader our constitution is sacred.

Also birthright citizenship is bullshit, normal countries have “Jus sanguinis”, the right of blood.

Attached: AP1107030197751.jpg (732x983, 393K)

What else would you have apart from birthright citizenship? Tests for all babies?

Here comes the brainwashed Trumptard

Who is the bigger alpha, Sasha or Mikheil?

Attached: Chadkashvili.jpg (584x350, 21K)

Macronreich
Almost

Being born within the jurisdiction of the US (which is the language used) doesn't just mean within the borders. If you're here illegally you're not quite within our jurisdiction because otherwise you'd be deported or jailed.

Also in case ya didn't know literally no European countries have birthright citizenship. It's not actually obvious that you should immediately grant citizenship to anyone who is born within your borders even if they got there illegally

t. Brainwashed CNN/MSNBC/etc tard

>If you're here illegally you're not quite within our jurisdiction
I thought that was obvious
I interpreted it as meaning that everyone needs to do a test or has to be white or something like that

No. Our president is a powerless cuck.

I’m not worried so much about the birthright citizenship as I am the dangerous legal precedent of a president rewriting the constitution whenever he feels like.
Trump and his supporters are doing everything they can to set up a dictatorship, it’s weird.

Nope. The debate is between libs who want to claim a lower court decision and a scotus decision on legal immigrants' children means that literally anyone can come here, shit out a kid, and that kid has citizenship, and Trump, who at least wants to dial it back to legal immigration only (which as it stands is the 1965 diversity lottery system)

>the dangerous legal precedent
Ok this HAS to be bait hahahahhaa

0.23% chance
11,699amendments have been proposed since 1789 when the constitution went into effect. 27 have passed, only 12 of those after 1900 and the last one was passed in 1992, it was proposed in 1789 and took 202 years to pass.

I never said that I liked the amendment faggot, but the fact that Trump has a total disregard for our checks and balances makes my blood boil. He is no American to me

I noticed whenever you tell a poltard something true they just start laughing and claim IT HAS TO BE BAIT because they can’t formulate an argument.

It makes me feel good that it would be that difficult and unlikely for my free speech or firearms to be taken away while you cucks got it voted away by a simple majority :)

Yes. They’ve done a complete 180 since Trump took office. Spineless.

Freedom of speech and the 2nd amendment cannot be revoked, they're in the bill of rights.

Trump hates the first amendment though.

Trump has advocated violating both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

As I understand it he's not changing anything in the constitution, he's just challenging the way it's interpreted.

Isn't that the most normal thing in the world though? Not even softie leftist countries like Sweden has birthright citizenships, it's a really strange idea that literally supports the anchor-baby thing.

People who are illegally in the US do not have any rights in the first place.

>but the fact that Trump has a total disregard for our checks and balances makes my blood boil
That's just not true. If it were you'd be more mad at Obama and Bush. DACA is an unconstitutional executive level program--not legislative, in fact, in flagrant violation of legislative law. Recess appointments Chrysler bailout Title IX (and the resulting kangaroo courts and guilty until proven innocent on rape claims at college campuses). Trump by comparison has followed the legislative process and appointed originalist SCOTUS judges.

Ok, I'll bite. Andrew Jackson and FDR both set that precedent much more strongly

Already did it.

Attached: ursinho-pooh-e-sua-turma-adesivos-recortados-cartelas-1x50-D_NQ_NP_15180-MLB20097093758_052014-F.jpg (401x400, 22K)

SeeYou're pretty much right. This is how hard the left shills for unlimited illegal immigration (whose kids vote democrat and are welfare leeches) here

Libel =/= freedlm of speech that's pretty basic, though I agree Trump's advocacy for stronger libel law for politicians is pretty stupid. Either way doesn't matter since a R senate and house would never pass such a thing

The first 10 Amendments can undergo amendment just like the rest of the Constitution dummy

I didn't understand what Chinese IPs are doing here. You have closed china-net. Are you a top-tier high-ranked chinese authority or something?

>American education

The Bill of Rights are just the first 10 amendments, they were passed 2
years after the constitution went into effect and can be changed just like any other amendment. Madison actually wanted to make them part of the body of the constitution itself but the founding fathers wanted them to be additional amendments specifically so they could be changed if necessary.

Why are yanks so consistently fucking stupid about everything including their own history?

Attached: 1510371409969.jpg (828x1034, 93K)

>muh constitution
>muh checks and balances
t. magapedes between 2008 and October 2016

The interpretation is pretty spot on. The sole problem is that it was never meant to nationalise all immigrants, but for that it has to be rewritten rather than reinterpreted.

Because i'm drunk on hard apple cider right now and I don't care

Attached: smug pepe.jpg (228x221, 7K)

It not totally blocked, only a blacklist which includes most major services, like Google, Facebook, etc.
Jow Forums is not that mainstream.

It's 9 am to 6 am in the continental US you degenerate

Maybe he's in Hawaii

>a simple majority
To change the Dutch constitution you need to;
- pass a law with a simple majority through the first and second chamber
- have re elections
- re apply the constitution change as voted on by the last government to the newly elected government
- now the first and second chamber have to pass it with 2/3rd of the votes

Funny how Redumblicans are constitutional purists only when ot suits them like "muh freedumbs".

Ok, assuming freedom of soeech is actually in your constitution, the Netherlands is based

But I was referring to the UK, Canada, and Germany

>"muh freedumbs"
>only when it suits them
Enjoy your hate speech prosecution and arbitrary imprisonment you commie son of a whore

>Freedom of speech
Every constitution on earth has this but the interpretation of freedom of speech differs per country. It is illegal to instigate racial, religious, or any other form of hatred in the Netherlands.

It's halloween faggot fuck off

Not based. Bluepilled. Cringe.

Freedom of speech is vacuous and meaningless if it doesn't include "hate speech"

The UK and Canada don't even really have constitutions. We have a series of acts, treaties, unions, charters, etc., spanning centuries that combined are sometimes called a constitution.
There's no founding fathers that sat down one day and invented a country from scratch. It happened organically over centuries here, often via trial and error.
Having said that, it would be harder to deny free speech broadly under a Westminster parliament than in the US system. It is easier though to make minor restrictions regarding freedom of expression. Like blasphemy laws or holocaust denial or racist spech.

.....I know, that was my point........

>harder in westminister
No. Just no.

I wish. Then I would have the motivation to become a politician so I can finally legalise the death penalty for incels

>he's just challenging the way it's interpreted.

Correct, the wording about people born here says they are citizens if they are born here if they are "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

So if the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of this country, the kids are not citizens.

also Jow Forums but fuck drumpf so it's allowed amirite?

seething retard

It is literally impossible under a Westminster system unless the people themselves support it.
In America it requires 66% of state and federal politicians to support it and a president that is a member of one of the two parties. The will of the people is irrelevant and all they could do is wait for the next election to vote in new people to change that amendment back.

I remember how upset they acted whenever Obama passed an executive order. Then Trump started firing them off left and right and they cheered anyway.
Trump supporters have no idea hat consistency is.
Why don’t they just admit they have no beliefs and they follow whatever Trump does?

Attached: 992B2DE6-DE46-4208-A3A8-3D5FAF7E4C71.jpg (500x356, 54K)

Poltards ITT actually think Democrats are left-wing.
Every time they type I realize they don’t know anything about the constitution or politics in general.
Btw illegal immigration has gone way up under Trump.

Attached: 3ABC35FF-20F8-4081-BC22-605EE582E4C2.jpg (720x960, 69K)

But the US constitution says it applies to everyone inside US jursidiction so every person even non-citizens are subject to US jurisdiction.
I cannot go to the US and commit crime since I will be put on trial under US law despite being Dutch.

Ok let's have a think here
>a simple majority of voters
Vs
>66% of congressmen and 66 senators and 38 states' senators or conventions
Hmmmmmm I wonder which one happens more frequently? Are there more successful referendums or constitutional amendments?

Democrats are left wing on the vast majority of issues and are left wing on all issues relative to the republican party and the country they represent.

The constitution applies to citizens, if somebody is here they are subject to our laws.

>liberals argue that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have been aware of the sheer level of firepower available to a single man or the climate of today and thus sticking to constitution rigidly on the issue doesn't make sense
>"NO MAN YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL IT'S SACRED"

>liberals argue that the constitution guarantees citizenship for those born in the US and thus revoking that citizenship is unconstitutional
>"um, OBVIOUSLY that wasn't what the founding fathers meant, liberal. They meant what I WANT them to mean."

not even anti gun but ecks dee

If th Pope interpreted the bible to be all about sodomy and sin would you have to accept that as a Catholic?

>originalist SCOTUS judges.
aka Judicial activists which is not how the Supreme Court is suposed to work, do Trumpsters ever consider precedents like Roe v Wade were set by people far more social conservative than those on the bench today?

Judges are supposed to rule on law, not conscience

If a majority of people want it then it's not a problem is it?
That's not how it works though, it isn't a plebiscite, it's a complex political process that has to go through a house of commons, a senate/house of lords, and then recieve assent from a non-partisan head of state that represents the will of the people.

Wait you're saying that a non-citizen doesn't have freedom of speech?

Justices in America have been legislating from the bench for centuries. Their entire system of government is set up to fail and needs to be drastically overhauled.

No, not even close, not sure how your dumb ass came up with that shit.

it's a relatively common opinion amongst anti-immigration conservatives here that illegal immigrants shouldn't have access to our rights because they're not here legally

lol

>not here legally
aka criminals

was there an implication somewhere in my post that i believed criminals forfeit all human rights

how is this not politics?

They cant change anything in the Bundesverfassung without the people voting on it :^)

>human rights
no
>american rights
??????

I'm curious now, isn't one of those alt-right women (that blonde one, I forgot her name) a Canadian?
Would that mean she could be sued for hate speech in the US?

They just do whatever the fuck they want in an effort to get their way. If Obama wants to target and kill an American citizen that joined isis without the constitutional right to a trial he does it. If Trump wants to say kids born in the US to illegals aren't under the jurisdiction of the US he does it. Always been this way, like most things with Americans, they more they pretend to care about something the less they actually do.

>how is this not politics?

see>also Jow Forums but fuck drumpf so it's allowed amirite?

No, the entire political class is scared shitless of a new constitution.

People rabble about it at every major protest. Personally I don't think it we're up for it at this time.

Attached: 2.png (461x311, 224K)

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Does not include illegal aliens.

>all that shit you wrote
Liberal media is cancer and I'm surprised you are such an easy pawn to it. Let me guess, you were upset at TRUMP separating families at the border too? And Cavanaugh

no idea what you're talking about
if you're here you follow our laws no matter what country you are from

Illegal aliens are not subject to US laws? They can go around killing and raping without police being allowed to stop them?
Or perhaps they life in fear because they can get deported under US jurisdiction which applies to ALL people residing within US borders.

A lot of the big alt-right names in the U.S. are Canadian. Laura Southern, Gavin McGinnis, Stephen Crowder, Jordan Peterson, etc. Paul Watson is a Brit and Milo Yiannopolous is Australian.
Basically any famous "intellectual" alt-right activist in America is from the commonwealth while the American alt-right activists are complete retards like Richard Spencer.

go ask a lawyer

>aka judicial activists
Quite the opposite. I agree they should enforce rule of law not their ideology, which is what originalism is.

>legal precedent
Roe v Wade was probably the most well known activist decision you could have come up with and shows how much you know lol

>simple majority in all of those
Yeah that's definitely not easier than 2/3rds of congress and 3/4s of the individual states

Do you not know what jurisdiction means?

As a lawyer, this decision really disgusts me.

Imagine, Trump changing the most plain, ordinary and grammatical interpretation of the constitution that everybody born in US soil is American, the interpretation that was the exact intention of Congress to be sweeping, the interpretation that people, even born to illegal immigrants, are US Citizens, and upheld by the courts since 1898!

Redumblicans are only constitutional purists when it suits them!

>American education

Attached: PicsArt_09-06-01.55.27.png (645x773, 25K)

>lauren southern
>gavin mcginnis
>not complete retards

Stephen Crowder can't even be called alt-right, he's just a faggot pseudoamerican neo-con. Jordan Peterson actually has interesting things to say when he isn't pandering to his e-celeb following.

They can only be prosecuted for breaking actual laws (so actually anyone even enemy combatants have freedom of speech in the US) but they don't have the rights of citizens like Social Security and welfare. Dummy
>muh alt right

They should be deported and they aren't under US jurisdiction until they are, or at least detained at which point a prosecutor decides what to do.

>Roe v Wade were set by people far more social conservative than those on the bench today?
>legalizing abortion
>socially conservative

Roe v. Wade is the definition of judicial activism
>dude haha somehow the 14th amendment has to do with abortion because we said so

No theyre fucking not. Democrats are and have always been a centrist party.

Actually the founding fathers enacted several gun laws, you should learn some history if you’re going to reference them.
The founders would have thought the NRA was insane.

Do you know what jurisdiction means?
I agree. If you're here illegally you don't qualify for voting or medicare, nor do you get constitutional protections. Same with enemy combatants

Lmao muh morally superior centrists

>the founders enacted gun laws
Yeah like making sure every able bodied man was able to overthrow the government when necessary

The NRA would be considered traitorous and tyrannical back in the day

They are all retards, McGinnis, Crowder, Yiannopolous, and Southern being by far the worst. They can however string together a sentence and engage in debate at a near human level.
The only big name yank doing that is Shapiro and he hates tge alt-right anf Trump almost as much as they hate him. Also he's an idiot.

The Democrats today don't even resemble to Democrats of the 90s, and the Democrats of the 50s had KKK members at the highest levels of the party, are you serious?
>the founders would have thought that a group dedicated to preserving the legal rights guaranteed to them in the constitution was insane