Ric Flair

The language of the Amendment itself is unclear and subject to debate. Your post itsel makes that clear when it talks about how “most legal scholars” agree. That means some, maybe many, do not.

So tell the Democrats to show up and do their jobs.

Bubble Board desperately needs some conservative or independent voices. Every thread lately is a bunch of like-minded Trump haters talking anout how much they hate Trump. #SAD

Protecting the border is a constitutional obligation. The myriad of Democratic handouts to buy votes are gimmicks.

At a rate consistent with the number of people who claim to be transgender? Of course not. Nope. Try again.

And how often does that occur?

I think someone needs to explain to this person what "science" is. If it's mere opinion, then why do we need scientists? "It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.” https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones

Yes. Which is why he should avoid making such statements. I think I've been clear about that.

Chromosomes line up as either XX or XY. It's science.

Under the law, they really are.

I'm not sure much about this IS gray. One's genitals and DNA paint a pretty clear picture of one's gender.

It amuses me that here on Bubble Board, I'm the token conservative you all run to with questions. Trump was obviously not being serious. Despite that, no, he should not have said that.

It's not at all obvious. Every person from every s******e country in the world could come here and claim asylum.

Semantics. Illegals are coming here illegally and trying to improve their odds by making false claims of asylum.

Are the numbers incorrect? If not, then the publication that published them is irrelevant.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/25/lawyers-coach-illegal-immigrant-caravan/

I’m in agreement on complete transparency, but oppose any limits on donations, funding, or spending as violations of the First Amendment. If the Koch Brothers or George Soros want to spend billions to elect Congressman Smith, then they should be able to. But the public should know about it and be able to question why. Corporations and their management are ultimately responsible to the shareholders as owners.

Putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/09/data-indicates-illegal-immigrants-exploiting-u-s-asylum-policies-false-claims/

Whoosh. Now that liberal activists are coaching those coming here illegally, they are virtually all claiming they are seeking asylum. Weeping and gnashing of teeth about how borders are mean doesn’t solve the problem.

Enough with the melodrama about being “erased from existence.” The question is about legal definitions of sex and gender. Regardlessof the definition they settle on, it’s not like you’re going to suddenly disappear.

Sadly that’s probably the same thinking as whoever just mailed those fake bombs to people.

More of this nonsense?

I think this sums it up nicely. Ben Shapiro on Transgenderism