>Dough
TYB
'fresh brrrrrrt
PB
>>24450552 TWZ.com: “A-10 Warthogs Are Doing Bizarrely Long Strafing Runs In Iraq”
>DID ANONS KNOW THIS?
Anonymous03/05/18(Mon) 23:58:33 0ad2c4 (5) No.562797
>>562612
I don't think it matters. I think GEOTUS understands his mission in part must be to destroy the Republican party if we are to restore the Republic.
At the risk of being excoriated for linking to the same blog again (it's been demonetized so it's not for views/$ but left up for info and as a resource) this explains some of the back story WHY the Dems have gotten away with it.
Snippet:
"….The 2012 election however, IMO, was secured by good old fashioned theft. Scores of voters rose from the dead to vote again; many districts had more voters than residents, and college students boasted about casting ballots in multiple districts (for example, at both their college "home" and their parents "homestead"). Aside from feeble protestations to address these egregious violations, nothing of any note was done to investigate let alone prosecute the massive electoral fraud.
What many average, trusting citizens don't realize is that the Republican party is permanently hog-tied. Going back to a landmark 1982 court case and "Consent Decree" the Republicans entered into, which was affirmed again in 2009, the Republicans are pretty much barred from doing much to challenge voter fraud in minority dominate districts. You can Google-Fu a wide variety of interpretations of what the Consent Decree means in terms of Republican vigilance over suspected Voter Fraud, but suffice to say that the Daily Kos felt it important to publish a post in 2009 advising Democratic poll observers to understand their "rights" and ensure that the Republicans remained "in the box" so to speak and unable to challenge or assert much of anything in minority-rich districts. The Republicans are held to a standard that the Democrats don't even have to try and meet. It is classic Alinsky in action."
https:// stopshouting.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-moderate-middle-voters-need-to.html#more
> https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/562391.html#562797
muh birthright
>hang on..police put republican in time out?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and established the principle of birthright citizenship (jus soli) for most people born on U.S. soil.
### Background and Facts
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China. His parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, where they ran a business, and were not diplomats or officials of the Chinese government. At the time, the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) and related laws barred Chinese immigrants from naturalizing as U.S. citizens and severely restricted Chinese immigration.
In 1895, after a temporary visit to China, Wong (then in his early 20s) was denied re-entry to the United States by customs officials in San Francisco. They claimed he was not a U.S. citizen because of his Chinese parentage and the exclusion laws. Wong filed a habeas corpus petition, asserting he was a citizen by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The key question was: Does a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents (specifically, Chinese subjects with permanent residence here) automatically become a U.S. citizen at birth under the clause: “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”?
### The Supreme Court’s Decision
In a 6-2 decision (Justice Joseph McKenna did not participate), the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark on March 28, 1898. Justice Horace Gray wrote the majority opinion.
The Court held that Wong was a U.S. citizen by birth. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause affirms the long-standing common-law rule of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth). Anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen, regardless of the parents’ race, national origin, or alien status—provided the parents are domiciled residents carrying on business and not in diplomatic or official roles for a foreign government.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was interpreted in light of English common law: it generally means being within the territory and owing allegiance to the United States (i.e., under its protection and laws). Children of foreign diplomats, those born on foreign public ships, or (in limited historical contexts) children of invading enemies were exceptions. Children of Native American tribes owing direct allegiance to their tribes were also noted as an additional exception at the time, though that was later addressed by statute.
The majority emphasized that the parents’ permanent domicile in the U.S. placed them (and thus their child) under U.S. jurisdiction. The Chinese Exclusion Acts could not override the Constitution’s clear command on citizenship by birth. Wong’s citizenship, acquired at birth, had not been lost by his temporary visit abroad.
### Dissent and Significance
Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, arguing (among other points) that citizenship should follow the parents’ allegiance more closely and that the exclusion laws reflected a congressional intent to limit Chinese claims to citizenship.
This case is foundational for modern U.S. birthright citizenship. It confirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants automatic citizenship to nearly all persons born on U.S. soil, including children of immigrants who are not eligible for naturalization themselves. It has been cited extensively in immigration law and debates over citizenship, and it remains good law. Congress later codified aspects of birthright citizenship in statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In short, Wong Kim Ark rejected race- or parentage-based barriers to citizenship for those born in the United States and solidified the broad application of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.