Trumpservashits

Yes, true conservatives support big business and want open borders because the illegals provide so much economic benefit. The more free the markets, the more free the border.

Attached: image.png (479x441, 104K)

We don't give a shit if it's 'hypocritical'. Ever single other ethnic group works for their best interests except ours. We want what is best for whites. 2A is good for whites. So is changing or deleting 14A. If you're so obsessed with 'fairness' go cry to Israel about how they treat their Palestinian cousins.

>>Liberal
>>Mi beliefes are organic
>>You beliefs are from mom and dadd
>>My blefs are thge good beeleefs
>>REEEE dRompifclop is literally an infant!!1

Attached: nbnv cvvb.png (585x565, 255K)

It establishes whom US law is over and has been ruled alreadyvto cover anchor babies.

Perhaps you should read on the 2nd and realize the first weapons bans occurred when Washington was around.

You can literally flip that around and it'll be libs flipping shit. Funny either way.
>muh It's only right when it benefits me faggots btfo.

The 14th amendment is not an original constitutional amendment
Therefor it is not a true fundamental constitutional amendment

>What is the bill of rights

The people who can't tell the difference shouldn't be allowed to vote

The 14th amendment states
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
How can this be interpreted any other way? It makes it damn clear that if you're born on American soil, you're an American.

I for one welcome all of the Dreamers being put on trains heading South, may they rebuild their countries with the skills they gained from here often at our expense.

>big business, as in corporate monopolies
>free market

pick one

No amendment is fundamental.
If it was fundamental, itd be written in the Constitution

>Howard is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. In the Senate, he also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pic related explains why "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was added to the amendment.
Trump's interpretation is right beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attached: howard_citizenship.png (514x689, 449K)

it was obviously made to cover slaves only

that its only purpose, nobody could predict the foreign baby farms and anchor babies we have now

>How can this be interpreted any other way?
See: They never assumed it would be interpreted otherwise. They believed "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" made it clear enough.

So then why was the first 8mmigration control bit passed 30 years later?
Why are there scotus cases affirming anchors?
Why was it all Mexicans had to do was go to a courthouse and recite the pledge of allegiance to be a citizen in the 60s?

>this is the quality of the leftoid's memes

Attached: 2838238959283958235.gif (268x185, 1.49M)

So illegals are not under US jurisdiction?
Sweet, gonna use one to beat people up then.

It has no affect on me or any other citizen of the United States. So why should I care when my rights aren't being violated?

because the scotus was controlled by neocons and libtards

now its as it should be

Read the text in the picture. They never assumed it would be assumed otherwise. These are the people who wrote the fucking amendment. Are you saying they interpreted their own words wrong?

>Equating the Bill of Rights with other amendments

What part of "not covered by the 14th amendment" implies he wants to erase it?

Honest question about this. How are you not an American if you're born in America? The land you're born on is your native land. There's really.no debate on that. Im not against tossing the parents out, but that kid was born on US soil.

If you cannot see the difference between the two issues than you're a retard. It's a bait thread nonetheless but w/e.

the second ammendment should only apply to whites like the founding fathers intended

> Strawman:
> Also strawman:
probably just as well, liberals get destroyed whenever they try to fight anything not made of straw

Attached: 1533602745753.webm (1280x720, 2.93M)

He intends to enforce the 14th as authored, not as an avenue to gain more democrat votes.

You're a fucking moron. How are leftists so SHIT at fucking history. SAGE faggot.

The original Bill of Rights was required to be ratified by all the states. The 14th amendment was literally meant to only apply to freed slaves, and passed 100 years after the founders and framers hammered out the original 10. The Bill of Rights won't be changed, but amendments after that have been repealed plenty of times for their to be historical precedent.

You're a fucking moron. sage sage sage this stupidity.

A hamster born in a fishtank is not a fish m8

Please explain. How was it authored?

If you think those twobare the same you are a brain dead moron
>2A specifically says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, i.e. you cannot legislate to take arms
>14th even specifically says All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
>subject to the jurisdiction of the united states
>an illegal immigrant is a citizen of a foreign la d, therefore they are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government
go fuck yourself commie

Here is one of the authors explaining it:

All land is native land at some point so that has no relevancy here.

>has been ruled alreadyvto cover anchor babies
no it hasn't

it has been ruled to cover children of non-citizens that have permanent residency
not the children of people here illegally

I don't think you get it. I don't care at all what you think about me, in fact the more you attack me, the more I know I'm on the right track.

For every attack you make, it only makes me want to support Trump more.

Attached: gF32FCwuzzEQwMv8.png (758x749, 500K)

Yep, cause 1891 had Ho vs US and saw the child of Chinese ambassadors an American

Nice buzzwords, still is

Terrible argument. I'm going to assume your lack of understanding of the American constitution stems from your lack of being an American.

1991 US vs Texas

Huh? This is dumb. Where YOU are born is YOUR native land.

>joining a discord server
I really hope people aren't doing that. Several employees have come out openly as marxists. There is no guarantee they'll protect your personal information.

>It says the constitution isn't meant to be changed.
>It should say the bill of rights isn't meant to be changed.
Go fuck yourself OP.

Sorry honey, the writers didn't intend that bullshit

Attached: Dqw7Z_-U0AA0Dih.jpg (705x1200, 326K)

So you're saying Trump is fighting a later SC ruling, not the original intent of the Constitution?
Good thing we have Kavanaugh, huh?

What the fuck is this? You've shown a small excerpt with a highlight section. This means nothing. Who wrote it? Where is it from?

You mean a scotus ruling in accord with the amendment
Why would Kavanaugh bevan activist?

Attached: 14th discussion.jpg (848x1200, 487K)

>The constituion was written in 1786
>The 14th amendment written in 1868

NPC meme is real.

If judges ruled it one way, judges can rule it another. Why would Kavanaugh sticking to the constitution be considered activism? Is it because you're a projecting leftist?

Theyre trying to claim dissents matter more than declerations.
Which means we may as well flip all scotus then since its minority rule time

Judge ruled with Constitution.
Is your plan to say that which agrees with you is the Constitution?
That makes it easy then.
No guns, only ursine appendages

>This means nothing.
It makes it extremely clear what the agreed interpretation was.

>Judge ruled with Constitution.
Yes, yes he will.
>No guns, only ursine appendages
Good luck with that, leftist

Why good luck, its clearly written bear arms, not firearms, matchlocks, muskets, cannonry or weapons.

And revoking the 2nd actually makes sense, guns kill people while immigrants are a net benefit to the economy

It's pretty funny hearing an argument on words from someone whose party doesn't know the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant

All memes aside, anchor babies were meant for slaves to have children and gain citizenship, not for spics to invade our country.

Excuse my ignorance (I'm a tradesmen not a college boy) but I suppose I'm still confused. What exactly is this from? This excerpt is not in the constitution, is it?

The constitution has been amended to say that niggers can be citizens.
>anybody who gets their filthy beaner ass across the border can have an anchorbaby to get citizenship themselves.

Attached: 1526489356174.png (700x734, 337K)

Well last I checked no one was paying illegals, thus making them slaves

Confirmed that Whites can't read.
>foreigners/aliens
>WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS
Dipshits. Make a fucking real argument if you want to succeed. this bullshit is so easy to see through, my kid knew you dumbasses are
wrong. DESU this is 100x worse than your retarded reading of the 2nd.

Principles are what losers use to sneer at their enemies from the sidelines.

I’m perfectly ok with hypocrisy that benefits me and mine.

you can revoke the 2nd amendment but 75% of people have to approve it, very unlikely to happen.

I believe that a nations ethnicity should be the same way. No policy shall me made that could potentially change the demographics of the country severely, only if over 75% of the population approves of such a policy. this is real democracy not 51% can force things on the 49%

Thank god we have a leader in the executive branch and SCOTUS Judges who would protect and enforce The Bill of Rights and The Constitution too many subverting commies as neighbors in this country

SHALL

>Yep, cause 1891 had Ho vs US and saw the child of Chinese ambassadors an American

No it didn't retard

see

Its not revoking, its just an EO clarifying how things shall work.
The ATF shall be defunded, and all 4473s shall be rejected.
After all, its clearly written bear arms, not firearms.
We even have dissents saying this as you can see by my randomly chosen picture

If it isn't on the Bill of Rights then it isn't a real amendment.

The 2nd is explicit on the right to bear arms. The 14th is implicit in the idea that anyone who walks in the country and born here is a citizen. The ammendment was made for freed slaves

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/

Ah is little babee butt hurt Bernie lost and trying to make magats look worse?

>Trumpanzees
I don't give a fuck about that massively outdated document old riddle of shit piece of parchment anyways, but it is true.

Attached: uciuf70muu9z.jpg (500x500, 43K)

>doesn't realize that freemarket causes big corporations to lobby laws harder and killing competition, thus gaining monopolies
Free market is a spook, bro.

14th amendment was never intended to allow anchor babies. Its authors literally said so in Congress. They specifically stated that it should never be used to grant citizenship to children born in the us by foreign nationals.

So sending the 14th to the Supreme Court for clarification is unilaterally removing it. Liberals are too retarded to meme.

We were merely playing politics user, even a galactic mind like yours should be able to see that?
Or can you not keep us negative noggins in check

Attached: 1539892822389.png (862x1000, 662K)

Isnt that what was said on every gun law?

>1 post by this ID
You people are pants-shitting retarded.

NPC detected.
Sounds like CNN software.

Sage

Attached: npclet.png (633x729, 77K)

No, I'm aware this happens. The free market ends up disintegrating without anti-trust. This is why I'm not an Ancap.

If the government intervenes its not freemarket, just socialism.
This is why its cancer

The writers of the Constitution didn’t intend for citizens to own semi-auto rifles and handguns either

You can try rationalizing it all you like but it’s hypocrisy, plain and simple. Either the Constitution is subject to change given changes to American society's or it isn’t.

You have no understanding of the court system. Rulings can be overruled and cases reinterpreted

>WhoTrump represents
This should be israel.

Ah yes, the living doctrine.
And as you wish, so can everything be reinterpreted.
Ursine appendeges.

You clearly haven't read about the Founding Fathers wanting Americans to own war ships and cannons. The Constitution is subject to change. It has been changed multiple times throughout history.

Liberals are literally doing the same just flipped around. OP has brain damage

occupy democracy gets it wrong, yet again
are the people over there just fucking retarded?
the 14th has nothing to do with a billion fucking democrat shill foreigners, it was to naturalize people who should have all been genocided, since they didn't have the forethought to do that, or the balls to pull the trigger and destroy the sub humans within our borders, we had to do something about it. hence the 14th. its got fuck all to do with foreigners and aliens, one of the drafters made this exceptionally clear.

false equivalence

Who is paying you OP, does ShareBlue still go by the same name?

>expecting it to be shareblue when liberals are the majority