HuffPost Donald Trump Vows To Abolish A Part Of The Constitution On ‘Day One’ If He Wins.

[Mycroft]

Your problem is that you are saying that all amendments only apply to what was happening when the amendment was passed.

Your other problem is that the 14th Amendment doesn't say only slaves. There is not even one word of slaves in that amendment.

That Amendment applies to everyone just like all other amendments apply to everyone.

We could say that when the 2nd amendment was written the context was muskets not today's weapons yet I'm sure you will insist that the 2nd doesn't only apply to muskets.

You can make the argument that the14th only applies to slaves but you're wrong. The words are very clear anyone born here is automatically a citizen.

The only way to change that is to change the constitution with a new amendment.

Your fantasies don't matter.

Another thing you don't realize is that if the 14th only applies to slaves, then the US government and state governments don't have any jurisdiction to prosecute an undocumented person for breaking our laws.

That undocumented person isn't a slave so you're saying that our legal jurisdiction doesn't apply to them.

You would allow an undocumented person to stay here in the US because our laws don't apply to them since they aren't a slave.

You seriously need to actually read that amendment.

LOL!!

Who are you trying to convince by telling me what my problems are?

You should talk to the courts.

 

[Liberal7360]

LOL!!

Who are you trying to convince by telling me what my problems are?

You should talk to the courts.

LOL.

That was very pathetic.

You should talk to the courts.

What you want has already been ruled unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment is very clear.

Those who are born here are citizens by birth.

None of your right wing brainwashing fantasies are valid and mean anything to anyone.

trump isn't going to be elected in 2024. The overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who boasts that he got rid of the right to abortion by appointing 3 far right judges on the Supreme Court.

Women are the majority voters in our nation.

I highly suggest you actually READ and COMPREHEND the constitution and stop paying any attention to the far right fools who have done a very good job of brainwashing you.

I know you have the conservative insecure need for a last word. Go for it. I'm not insecure or conservative so I don't need a last word. I won't read or reply what you post so you will be replying to no one.

May the Mother Goddess bless you and forgive you for your many horrendous sins against her children and our Mother Earth.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

'We want dictator Trump': America First activist publicly calls for 'Trumpian Reich'

Tyler Russell, a Canadian nationalist leader of the America First movement, has called for Donald Trump to be installed as "dictator" in a "Trumpian Reich." In a clip obtained by Right Wing Watch, Russell told the audience of his daily broadcast about his vision for a Trump government. "All...

www.rawstory.com

 

[braindrain]

"destroy"

Section 1 is pretty clear. Do you want the SC to just start overriding any part of the Constitution they think does not benefit Trump?

Trump is an idiot that will hopefully never come near the White House for so much as a visit ever again.

But it is an interesting argument when the second amendment is pretty clear as well. That never stops many on the left from supporting the SC to just override the part of the constitution that they don’t agree with.

 

[Nickyjo]

Are you afraid a Supreme Court with a conservative majority might destroy a previous interpretation of that part of the 14th Amendment?

You can be sure that a lot of individuals, organizations and companies who make a lot of money helping people get their children declared US citizens are very afraid.

What is the harm in helping people or their children become citizens? I used to teach citizenship classes some time ago. I was never prouder to be an American as when I was telling America’s story to immigrants in my class.

 

[Nickyjo]

I think I said that. So I guess we agree even though you prefer to be unagreeable.


Now you have gone off the rails. No other country on the planet has birthright citizenship so reversing it would perfectly legitimate, though unlikely. The idea that opposing it is a sign of unAmericanism or hatred of the country is just a stupid smear.

Good point. Calling people unAmerican belongs with dumb right wingers, not progressives.

 

[Mycroft]

What is the harm in helping people or their children become citizens? I used to teach citizenship classes some time ago. I was never prouder to be an American as when I was telling America’s story to immigrants in my class.

We aren't talking about people choosing to take the step to renounce their citizenship to another country and becoming an American citizen. My own daughter in law made that choice and I am very proud of her.

No. We are talking about non-citizens using a loophole in our Constitution to make their children citizens.

 

[Nickyjo]

We aren't talking about people choosing to take the step to renounce their citizenship to another country and becoming an American citizen. My own daughter in law made that choice and I am very proud of her.

No. We are talking about non-citizens using a loophole in our Constitution to make their children citizens.

Gee, I bet no one has ever done that. I know more than one person who entered into a “marriage” to legalize someone. Seems to me there was even a movie about it, Green Card. Be not afraid. This sort of thing has been going on for generations, probably for centuries in other countries. How do you think Texas came to be?

 

[Mycroft]

Gee, I bet no one has ever done that.

Your snarkasm is noted...and rejected.

I know more than one person who entered into a “marriage” to legalize someone.

We aren't talking about a non-citizen marrying a citizen to gain legal status.

Again, We are talking about non-citizens using a loophole in our Constitution to make their children citizens.

And...for your snarkasm: Bye.

 

[Nickyjo]

Your snarkasm is noted...and rejected.


We aren't talking about a non-citizen marrying a citizen to gain legal status.

Again, We are talking about non-citizens using a loophole in our Constitution to make their children citizens.

And...for your snarkasm: Bye.

Your distinctions are valid but … searching for a metaphor here … are two sides of the same coin known as “gaming the system.” And my so-called snark was more or less a repeat of the ancient Roman adage that there’s nothing new under the sun. Whether it was settlers breaking treaties with the Indians and moving into the Black Hills, or centuries before, Muslims and Jews getting baptized and pretending to be Catholics so as not to leave Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, people have often offered whatever pretense they can to move or stay put.

 

[Tangmo]

What do the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments all have in common?

Figure out the answer to that question and you'll have the context.

Okay Riddler.

NOT.

 

[Nickyjo]

Correct.

And most certainly not illegal immigration or tourism.

Irrelevant, assuming I understand your point correctly. The amendments have been used for reasons unconnected to slavery for quite a while, e.g., the equal protection clause in the 14th. This is no different than the way elements of the Bill of Rights have been used. No reason they can’t be used in arguments on immigration or some other topic.

 

[Mycroft]

Irrelevant, assuming I understand your point correctly. The amendments have been used for reasons unconnected to slavery for quite a while, e.g., the equal protection clause in the 14th. This is no different than the way elements of the Bill of Rights have been used. No reason they can’t be used in arguments on immigration or some other topic.

I think you are making a big assumption about the current Supreme Court.

 

[NuffSaid]

Trump is an idiot that will hopefully never come near the White House for so much as a visit ever again.

But it is an interesting argument when the second amendment is pretty clear as well. That never stops many on the left from supporting the SC to just override the part of the constitution that they don’t agree with.

There’s a reason why some want 2A overridden.

The only reason why Trump wants the SC to remove part of constitution is because he hates brown people and he knows his cult will drool and clap over it.

 

[braindrain]

There’s a reason why some want 2A overridden.

The only reason why Trump wants the SC to remove part of constitution is because he hates brown people and he knows his cult will drool and clap over it.

That doesn’t change the hypocrisy of those complaining about someone wanting the SC to pretend the clear language in the constitution means something other then what it does one day and the next day wanting the SC to do the same thing for a different amendment.

 

[j brown's body]

Trump is an idiot that will hopefully never come near the White House for so much as a visit ever again.

But it is an interesting argument when the second amendment is pretty clear as well. That never stops many on the left from supporting the SC to just override the part of the constitution that they don’t agree with.

The second amendment is particularly clear if, like the NRA does, you write out the part about "a well-regulated militia."

 

[Jezcoe]

The second amendment is particularly clear if, like the NRA does, you write out the part about "a well-regulated militia."

View attachment 67450586

They didn’t want a standing army so they guaranteed firearm ownership for calling up militias.

That idea started to fall apart in the War of 1812 when Tennessee militia who had marched up to Michigan refused to go into Canada because as a militia they saw themselves as a defensive only force.

 

[braindrain]

The second amendment is particularly clear if, like the NRA does, you write out the part about "a well-regulated militia."

View attachment 67450586

So I am sure you can find the numerous other times in the constitution that the words the people meant only those in a militia right. I will wait for you to post them.

 

[braindrain]

They didn’t want a standing army so they guaranteed firearm ownership for calling up militias.

That idea started to fall apart in the War of 1812 when Tennessee militia who had marched up to Michigan refused to go into Canada because as a militia they saw themselves as a defensive only force.

And what constitutional amendment was passed that changed that guarantee. Because no matter how much one may think an idea is falling apart it doesn’t actually change the law.

 

[WillyPete]

Recently on Fox, Newt Gingrich was comparing DeSantis and Trump, and said, in effect, that DeSantis was talking above his audience and they weren't understanding his points, whereas Trump has an ability to communicate with people with a grade school education.

 

[j brown's body]

Recently on Fox, Newt Gingrich was comparing DeSantis and Trump, and said, in effect, that DeSantis was talking above his audience and they weren't understanding his points, whereas Trump has an ability to communicate with people with a grade school education.

Communicating at elementary grade school level is a Trump strength. I've never seen him communicate any other way. It suits his personality.

 

[j brown's body]

So I am sure you can find the numerous other times in the constitution that the words the people meant only those in a militia right. I will wait for you to post them.

Only in the 2nd to my knowledge. Why?

 

[braindrain]

Only in the 2nd to my knowledge. Why?

So you think that the meant something different by the term the people when they wrote it in the 2nd then they did every other time.

And you expect people to believe you.

 

[vanceen]

Donald Trump vowed in a campaign video released Tuesday to end birthright citizenship on “Day One” of his presidency if he wins the 2024 election.

The former president claimed the constitutional guarantee of U.S. citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, was “not working” in a lengthy, dog whistle-filled screed in which he fearmongered about criminals and people with mental health issues invading the country.

How many times and in how many different ways does trump need to show us he has no regard for the law at all and what the hell is wrong with the republican party that they don't kick this man to the curb? Most of you folks who support this man, he would have no qualms throwing y'all into an oven. Trump thinks and talks like a dictator, an angry dictator ready to strike at anyone who disagrees with him. Now he's bombing a former press secretary of his for reporting 'wrong' numbers of a poll. Trump's demands from others are great while giving nothing back but possible legal problems. He's a sexual predator, almost everything about him is being investigated and he wants to pardon the convicted criminals from 1/6.

How far the gop has fallen to not only accept this kind of candidate, they embrace him. Sad.

It might be something to worry about if he could do it. But the President can't nullify the 14th Amendment on "day one" or any other day.

Let's hope he's not elected. But eliminating birthright citizenship would not be in his his power if he was.

 

[vanceen]

...end the 2 term limits so he can stay in power for the rest of his horrible life.

A President can't do that either.