Yup, none at all. I didn't want to insult you. I also could have said a middle school student. It's just beyond stupid to believe that you'd need a constitutional amendmnet to allow refugees in the absence of a refugee treaty.
You couldn’t even get out of your own way enough to the point you said legal definitions weren’t real. They would! If you actually read the Constitution, or anything instead of your ego, you would realize this.
The legal definition? No such thing. Also, legal definitions don't travel back in time, in case you didn't know.
Have you spoken a first-year law student yet?
It's literally retarded. It's so dumb that I feel bad for mocking you for believing that, because it's like I'm beating up a cripple.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You contradict yourself then claim I’m the one with no legal knowledge. Absolutely hilarious and proving you’re a shitlib time after time after time.
Yup, none at all. I didn't want to insult you. I also could have said a middle school student. It's just beyond stupid to believe that you'd need a constitutional amendmnet to allow refugees in the absence of a refugee treaty.
You couldn’t even get out of your own way enough to the point you said legal definitions weren’t real. They would! If you actually read the Constitution, or anything instead of your ego, you would realize this.
Do pay attention. I said there is no 'the' legal definition, as if there is one that applies now and at the time of the law that I cited.
Like I said, I feel bad laughing at you for believing this.