Message from @OneTrueGod

Discord ID: 625067354744946689


2019-09-21 15:58:46 UTC  

First you NEED to stack the supreme court with conservatives

2019-09-21 15:58:49 UTC  

As many as possible

2019-09-21 15:58:54 UTC  

Hell even get government espionage to get people in the state to support it

2019-09-21 15:59:54 UTC  

Yeah put section 8 housing in California

2019-09-21 15:59:58 UTC  

Support independence

2019-09-21 16:00:03 UTC  

Let them leave if it works

2019-09-21 16:00:16 UTC  

They commit Brazil and niggerdom

2019-09-21 16:00:45 UTC  

Then we deport all of the illegals, from DACA, birthright citizenship is revoked

2019-09-21 16:00:58 UTC  

Visa overstays or border crossers

2019-09-21 16:01:35 UTC  

You can’t revoke birthright citizenship

2019-09-21 16:53:34 UTC  

If they’re born on us soil they’re a citizen

2019-09-21 16:53:38 UTC  

Yes we can

2019-09-21 16:54:10 UTC  

That’s based off of a fucked up interpretation of the 14th amendment

2019-09-21 16:54:22 UTC  

The courts could easily fix that

2019-09-21 17:04:55 UTC  

k python -- to clarify what weez just said .... *as things stand right now*, you can't.

2019-09-21 17:06:10 UTC  

also, at this point, given the longevity of the precedence involved, you'd basically need a new amendment to change that (as a practical matter).

2019-09-21 17:07:22 UTC  

Yeah that’s true

2019-09-21 17:07:51 UTC  

I mean it’s correct the establishment is not working for us anyway

2019-09-21 17:07:56 UTC  

I think it’s going to fall apart

2019-09-21 17:15:43 UTC  

(i can't find it right now, but ....) i was watching a talk given by anthony scalia wherein he talked about various considerations when overturning precedence; and apparently it is considered "good law" to balance how __disruptive__ overturning something will be.
such as, if a particular <thing> has been in place for <some indeterminately "long time"> such that society has built itself around *that* particular interpretation, and changing that would "unduly disrupt" society, then the "right" decision is to leave it in place.
(don't know that i agree with that; but it is what it is)
iow, u'd need an actual amendment to change it

2019-09-21 20:34:30 UTC  

That's a pretty terrible way of doing things

2019-09-21 20:34:40 UTC  

Intentionally slowing progress down

2019-09-21 20:34:55 UTC  

No no silly, just changing the direction of progress.

2019-09-21 20:45:15 UTC  

"progress"

2019-09-21 20:45:57 UTC  

a)that seems to assume that rejecting precedence only goes in 1 direction
lol

2019-09-21 20:47:50 UTC  

b) the point is that you can't just go around ripping out long-standing ways of being *in 1 fell swoop*

2019-09-21 20:48:21 UTC  

i completely agree with the sentiment; i just don't think that i'd call it "good law"

2019-09-21 20:50:22 UTC  

u can have change (or "progress", lol) without destabilizing society in the process

2019-09-21 21:23:01 UTC  

yo i was thinking that the only way to fix demographics in the UK shall be taxing the non naturals for every 3rd kid, the 4rth kid like 60% more expensive and so on.

2019-09-21 21:24:40 UTC  

or removing every aid from the 3rd kid... or some shit like that.

2019-09-21 21:26:22 UTC  

some way to discourage the "tourists with expenses paid" from having 10 F kids.

2019-09-21 21:31:57 UTC  

<:powerful:595334910764515338>

2019-09-21 21:38:28 UTC  

that would never happen

2019-09-21 21:38:47 UTC  

its better to incentivize rather than penalize

2019-09-21 21:39:13 UTC  

and you cant give different rules to different races because obviously

2019-09-21 21:40:21 UTC  

i do not see the "obviously"

2019-09-21 21:40:33 UTC  

things may change.

2019-09-21 21:40:45 UTC  

youre taxing people based on ethnicity

2019-09-21 21:40:49 UTC  

you cant do that

2019-09-21 21:40:56 UTC  

its political suicide

2019-09-21 21:41:10 UTC  

and youre just asking for an ethnostate