@aterkel @cristianafarias Maybe a stupid question, but isn't a constitutional amendment constitutional by definition?
-
-
-
@jonathanchait@aterkel It begins with a proposal. And since the proposal is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, it's ostensibly illegal. -
@cristianafarias@jonathanchait@aterkel I’m sorry, Cristian, but this is completely wrong. -
@charlescwcooke@cristianafarias@jonathanchait@aterkel I have to agree. Constitutional amendments aren't subject to a motive analysis. -
@Popehat@charlescwcooke@jonathanchait@aterkel Have we ever seen such a crazy hypothetical—a constitutional amendment rooted in animus? -
@cristianafarias@Popehat@jonathanchait@aterkel That’s entirely irrelevant. The means by which the document’s amended is clearly laid out. -
@charlescwcooke@cristianafarias@jonathanchait@aterkel Cristian, you're letting your politics override your judgment. Stop. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@aterkel "It's clearly unconstitutional to amend the Constitution for reasons I don't like." Brilliant legal analysis.@cristianafarias -
#ProTip There is no such thing as an "unconstitutional Constitutional amendment."@aterkel@cristianafarias
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sigh.... REALLY? Did u take history 101? Only "America Sux" courses? READ THE
#CONSTITUTION again, then rewrite!@aterkel@cristianafarias -
@SeldenGADawgs @LadySandersfarm@aterkel@cristianafarias the supremes gave birthrights to LEGAL immigrants...NOT to Invaders...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@aterkel@cristianafarias How totally foolish they are! The14th was meant to assure citizenship for freed slaves born here!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@aterkel@cristianafarias No amendment needed to end anchor baby citizenship because it is not granted by 14th Amendment. ANY QUESTIONS?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@aterkel@cristianafarias Uhm...hello? This is Huff Po's brilliance on display...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@aterkel@cristianafarias By your logic, Prohibition could never have been repealed, because the repeal proposal was illegalThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@aterkel@cristianafarias This is very bad legal analysis. SCOTUS would never rule that Constitution self-limits amendment via amendment. -
@Globalizer360@aterkel@cristianafarias SCOTUS has no authority to prevent any amendment, and if they rule so, they must be executed. -
@Jkqyl@aterkel@cristianafarias A bit extreme, but actually agree re: SCOTUS authority...could prob only rule on proper enactment -
@Globalizer360@aterkel@cristianafarias We have set them up to rule how they wish. If we say its their decision they can. Its not theirs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.