How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
Lots of you guys masquerading as guys here because only women are supposed to piss and moan. I she’s good enough for Trump I will be happy to have my senator back her. Ed k
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
Lots of you guys masquerading as guys here because only women are supposed to piss and moan. I she’s good enough for Trump I will be happy to have my senator back her. Ed k
one day I hope to grow up and be as tough as you are
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
The founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
Well aware. What does the constitution say on the matter?
You seem to agree with what our founders wanted. In this day and age of judges blatantly making up horse sh1t to read into the constitution. A judge actually reading something into the constitution that anyone with a basic understanding of American history and our founding can agree was in fact our founders intent and on something as critically important as immigration is the least of my worries.
That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
The founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
Well aware. What does the constitution say on the matter?
You seem to agree with what our founders wanted. In this day and age of judges blatantly making up horse sh1t to read into the constitution. A judge actually reading something into the constitution that anyone with a basic understanding of American history and our founding can agree was in fact our founders intent and on something as critically important as immigration is the least of my worries.
this will never happen but what should be brought up is taking away 80% of the power of the SC and all federal judges. they are making law without being elected and are there for life. no way was this country set up for them to have so much power. that is how the communists got their way for 50 years no matter how many fake right wing judges there were
Man, some guys can't see the forest because of the trees, lol.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Or, from Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."
Loser thinking like this is exactly how we've gotten to where we are today. I'll take the perfect diamond and that ain't Amy. Not even close.
you are 100% right . the right has been losing on every major issue for 50 years no matter who was on the SC. once they get there they all go deep state and the slow genocide of whites marches on unimpeded. barrett will betray the right
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different.
The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation - law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history.
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different.
The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation - law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history.
this country was founded by white supremacists for white people .they annihilated any non whites they found. for 100 years only white men who owned property could vote. it is amazing how suicidal whites are. I expect it on the left but more then half the right whites cant wait until they are a minority. in the history of the would this has never happened
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different.
The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation -law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history.
The Constitution provides for that through the ratification of amendments through due Constitutional process.
Legislated law doesn't amend the Constitution.
Neither does whatever a judge "rules" when trying to legislate from the bench.
We have seen way too much of both. The Constitution really doesn't grant powers. It limits the powers of federal gov't. And passes the powers not named to the states.
(That's the way it SHOULD be anyway. It's the way it was written.)
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional.
I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different.
The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation - law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history.
Did our founders pass out voting rights to Mexicans, Native Americans, or Africans? Heck our founders were more interested in shooting the native Americans than much else. It doesn’t take a PHD in American history to understand whom the framers of the constitution felt best qualified to run this republic or whom the republic was for.
No matter what you I or anyone else thinks. Anyone trying to spin it that the founders of this country wanted an open borders hodgepodge of people from all faiths, cultures, or races to have a say in running this country or that they wanted anything other than a majority white population either has a very poor understanding of history or an agenda.
