arctanthrope

the gist, as I understand, is that the argument that was presented is basically “the purpose of the 14th amendment was only to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves; children of parents who do not intend to permanently live in the US, or who still feel allegiance to a foreign country, are not intended to be included.” Barrett’s response was essentially “your argument is self-contradictory. many parents of newly freed slaves did not feel allegiance to the US and wished to return to the countries that they or their ancestors were taken from against their will. the amendment cannot have been intended to both include and exclude their children.”

I think 50 for a gram is the worst deal I’ve ever heard of, that better be a really good fucking cookie

“the 1st amendment is a shield against orthodoxy of thought, that’s why we’re using it to justify the enforcement of orthodox thought”

obligatory Mitch Hedberg reference

fun fact Transylvania literally means “the place on the other side of the forest” in Latin