Posted on 07/17/2025 7:14:32 AM PDT by Red Badger
It was easier to look up than I expected. Both chambers look like simple majority... This may have legs.
The Senate:
For most votes, including those on bills, resolutions, and amendments, a simple majority is sufficient. This means more than half of the senators voting must be in favor.
House of Representatives:
In the house:
A bill needs a majority of the representatives present and voting to pass. With 435 voting members, a simple majority is 218.
I look these things up but have no faith in the answer since it seems to always have some kinds of exceptions. I certainly don’t rely on my understanding that seemed so clear when I took civics nearly 60 years ago now. I hope you are right and it does have legs.
UNDER THE JURISDICTION THEREOF
IS the part no DEM seems capable of reading.
One argument that should be put forth and hasn’t been to my knowledge is the situation of American Indians. They were most certainly born in the U.S. but did not get citizenship until Congress passed a law granting it in 1924. If American Indians whose ancestors lived on what was to become American soil for millennia weren’t citizens, why should some kid whose mom just crossed the border be one?
A start, but don’t forget that there is Murkowski, Collins, Tillis, McConnell, Graham, Cornyn all waiting to kill it on orders from the donor class, the Bush/Rove cronies, and the Chamber of Commerce.
At the time, through treaty obligations, Indians on the reservations were not considered fully under the jurisdiction.
What would make me really happy would be making it retroactive for the past 40 years!
Originalism in the US constitution would have prevented the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments from being passed.
The founders never intended to force states to "ratify" amendments by having the army point guns at them.
Even in regular law, any contract made under duress is null and void.
Neither were transient foreigners.
And to not put too fine a point on it, all the immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America are "Indians" by the way they defined it in 1868.
Great news!!
Thanks for posting...
So many idiots can’t or won’t understand that
Yeah, I know you want to re-litigate and re-fight the Civil War and that specific set of years during and right after it.
As for the text of the 14th, which is what I was referring to, it is what it is.
The 14th Amendment is a slavery amendment and nothing more. It’s not gay marriages and illegal aliens and prayer in schools. That’s not what the war was over.
As for the text of the 14th, originalism is the answer.
I mean, I seemingly typed it daily during the Bush years.
The GOP took ACTION against conservatives to help out the Democrats.
It fits.
Isn't it a little hypocritical to long for "Originalism" and then wish I would stop talking about it when "Originalism" doesn't go the direction you want?
As for the text of the 14th, originalism is the answer.
As for the text of the original constitution, using soldiers to *FORCE* people to vote the way you want is *NOT* the answer.
What will be the status of illegal aliens’ children who’ve been here all their lives and know English better than their parents’ language (the so-called ‘Dreamers’) who’ve had no choice in these matters? We can’t have them in a limbo as “sorta-citizens”.
Give them the option given Legal Immigrants where they are the responsibility of legal relatives or a sponsor for so much time (off the dole) then take the test and Oath.
And Cotton...he needs close watching.
Unfortunately I don’t think you can apply a law retroactively.
I think it will take a Constitutional Amendment and would never pass.
Ilan Wurman | The Case Against Birthright Citizenship | NatCon 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ifpA77Jjuc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.