Anonymous ID: df6e97 Oct. 9, 2018, 12:56 p.m. No.3411852   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3411737

Adding sauce for those too fucking lazy to go find it themselves even though the goddamn sauce l been posted multiple times already. I'm talking to you >>3411747

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-26-of-26/view

Page 21

Anonymous ID: df6e97 Oct. 9, 2018, 1:02 p.m. No.3411922   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3411860

Put simply, Supreme Court will decide if it is constitutional for a military court to try a private (American) citizen under (insert circumstances here). The Court's holding in Ex parte Milligan (1866) states that American citizens may not be tried in front of a military tribunal when civilian courts are still functioning. So what defines "functioning" is the question. Will have to be shown that the civilian courts cannot function. Cannot try these people. Or will the Court overturn that precedent (more like settled law).

Anonymous ID: df6e97 Oct. 9, 2018, 1:08 p.m. No.3411988   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3411942

I'd like to see this deeply flawed constitutional interpretation remedied ex post haste. Congress could not have foreseen people getting travel visas, coming here to give birth just so their kid is a citizen by birth. That wasn't the intent anyway. It was to give freed slaves who were born here, who were not considered a full person and were not considered to be a citizen of any country, their (well-deserved) citizenship.