Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

[Kobie]

But that would mean leftist are mean spirited, uncaring, greedy, heartless people that do not care about the poor, or those in need.

It must be nice to live in a world where you can just assume your political opposites are pure evil.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

It must be nice to live in a world where you can just assume your political opposites are pure evil.

They fight to keep a border unsecured

They fight to reward invaders who have no right to be here as to win over their future votes

They then seek to disarm Americans in the face rampant crime committed by these invaders

Anyone who would import harm to a nation and then seek to disarm the people of that nation is evil. Anyone who can not understand that is living in a fools paradise.

 

[Kobie]

They fight to keep a border unsecured

They fight to reward invaders who have no right to be here as to win over their future votes

They then seek to disarm Americans in the face rampant crime committed by these invaders

Anyone who would import harm to a nation and then seek to disarm the people of that nation is evil. Anyone who can not understand that is living in a fools paradise.

This is sheer nonsense.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

This is sheer nonsense.

This is reality and it is sheer madness. No amount of data will convince people like you.

 

[Kobie]

This is reality and it is sheer madness. No amount of data will convince people like you.

Okay.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Context

Why are the only nation to have this in the industrialized nation and share a border with a failed state.

 

[Helix]

In fact it is you who has it wrong. This is a government of the people, and the people, acting through their elected representatives in Congress, have the final say on what anything in the Constitution means. There is a good reason the Constitution deals with Congress in Article I, with the executive branch in article II, and leaves the Supreme Court for Article III. Tje judicial branch was always meant to be by far the weakest of the three. Nothing in the Constitution makes it the final arbiter of what any part of that Constitution means. The Court has arrogated that power to itself in its decisions.

Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, but we could impeach and remove any or all of them, if enough of us insisted on it loudly enough. And soon after the Civil War Congress showed, in Ex Parte McCardle, that it can completely remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over a case--and therefore its power to decide it. Also, the president may decline to enforce a Supreme Court decision, as President Lincoln did with the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford. The notion that the American people have no choice but to sit still and take whatever outrage the Supreme Court may choose to inflict on us is a falsehood pushed by statists who want the Court to help them implement their utopian social schemes.

About twenty years ago, Congress did something very much what you would have us believe it cannot do. It enacted, by large majorities of both Houses, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And that law clearly states its purpose is to restore the broad interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that the Court followed in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder. The Court had drastically restricted the protection of the right to free exercise of religion in a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, shocking many Americans, and they wanted the earlier, broader protection restored.

The Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997 that Congress could not use the RFRA to substitute its interpretation of the Constitution for the Court's own--but only as applied to the states. The Court could not have made more clear that it follows the RFRA's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause in federal matters than it did not so long ago in the Hobby Lobby case. In that case, the Court held that a HHS rule on contraceptives was invalid because it failed to meet the Sherbert-Yoder "compelling interest" standard that the RFRA imposes.

If Congress can tell the Court how it wants it to interpret the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as it did in certain earlier decisions, it can also tell the Court it wants it to interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as is did in an earlier decision. Stare decisis is not an inviolable rule--it would not be an obstacle to change, if Congress made very clear it did not want it to be.

no, i'm not wrong.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

kids born here are citizens. if congress tries to legislate around that, it will get tossed out by the SCOTUS. this amendment isn't written in an ambiguous way like many of the others.

you might not like it, but that's how it's written. if you don't like that, amend it.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

no, i'm not wrong.



kids born here are citizens. if congress tries to legislate around that, it will get tossed out by the SCOTUS. this amendment isn't written in an ambiguous way like many of the others.

you might not like it, but that's how it's written. if you don't like that, amend it.

Well we will take it to court. We will win, this madness will end.

 

[Helix]

Well we will take it to court. We will win, this madness will end.

nah, you probably won't.

 

[mbig]

no, congress does not get to legislate an end run around a clearly written amendment. amend it, or challenge it in the courts.

It was NOT clearly written and NOT intended to cover the current situation.
There were no "Illegal immigrants" and offspring in 1868 to confer or deny citizenship to.
It was meant to assure Native-born slaves got citizenship, NOT that the children of an unforeseen future illegal invasion got the privilege.

It's like saying the 2nd Amendment is "clearly written," so I can have a Tank, Apache Helicopter, and Cruise missile.

Read it and weep:
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
It's about Intent.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

It was NOT clearly written and NOT intended to cover the current situation.
There were no "Illegal immigrants" and offspring in 1868 to confer or deny citizenship to.
It was meant to assure Native-born slaves got citizenship, NOT that the children of an unforeseen future illegal invasion got the privilege.

It's like saying the 2nd Amendment is "clearly written," so I can have a Tank, Apache Helicopter, and Cruise missile.

Read it and weep:
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
It's about Intent.

Well it does over arms such as those, but that is besides the point.

 

[cabse5]

The 2nd Amendment is clear, so is the 14th, your revisionism does not work.

So is the first amendment concerning religion. It's just that the Thomas Jefferson SCOTUS didn't want religion to have ANY voice in government with its separation of church and state interpretation. This, in no way, was the thoughts and words of James Monroe the architect of religion's place in government as written in The Constitution. I'm sure you'd like to disagree since this hits close to your Libertarian home.

What I'm trying to say is the courts have 'bastardized' The Constitution with some really screwy and unconventional precedents and everyone has to deal with these bastardized precedents. What was meant when first written may not matter any more.

 

[chromium]

birthright citizenship is pretty much how every country in the world functions and i cannot imagine the legal anarchy that would result from this. He's even more bat**** crazy than i thought

 

[chromium]

Well we will take it to court. We will win, this madness will end.

yeah, and your own kids won't be citizens then

such well thought out policy the right wing comes up with

 

[cabse5]

birthright citizenship is pretty much how every country in the world functions and i cannot imagine the legal anarchy that would result from this. He's even more bat**** crazy than i thought

Ah, have you checked out Mexico, for example?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

So is the first amendment concerning religion. It's just that the Thomas Jefferson SCOTUS didn't want religion to have ANY voice in government with its separation of church and state interpretation. This, in no way, was the thoughts and words of James Monroe the architect of religion's place in government as written in The Constitution. I'm sure you'd like to disagree since this hits close to your Libertarian home.

What I'm trying to say is the courts have 'bastardized' The Constitution with some really screwy and unconventional precedents and everyone has to deal with these bastardized precedents. What was meant when first written may not matter any more.

Which is why the courts must be reigned in, if not all hope of peaceful restoration of Liberty is gone and with that war is the only choice.

 

[cabse5]

yeah, and your own kids won't be citizens then

such well thought out policy the right wing comes up with

No, you ding bat. I assume AmericanSpartan is currently an American citizen. There is no proposal by any American politician to evict any AMERICAN CITIZENS.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

birthright citizenship is pretty much how every country in the world functions and i cannot imagine the legal anarchy that would result from this. He's even more bat**** crazy than i thought

No it is not. Have you seen the map below.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

yeah, and your own kids won't be citizens then

such well thought out policy the right wing comes up with

I am a US Citizen therefore my kids would be US Citizen, Are you leftist this out of it?

 

[Kobie]

I am a US Citizen therefore my kids would be US Citizen, Are you leftist this out of it?

You are proving my theory, repeatedly.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

You are proving my theory, repeatedly.

What that logic and reason are a trait lacking in leftists?

 

[Kobie]

What that logic and reason are a trait lacking in leftists?

No, my theory that the more often a poster uses the word "leftists," the higher the chance -- reaching 100%, actually -- that said poster is completely full of crap. That's you, pal.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

No, my theory that the more often a poster uses the word "leftists," the higher the chance -- reaching 100%, actually -- that said poster is completely full of crap. That's you, pal.

So you are attacking me instead of the issue, shocking..

 

[Kobie]

So you are attacking me instead of the issue, shocking..

Because everything you post is utter tripe. Don't like it, post things that aren't garbage.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Because everything you post is utter tripe. Don't like it, post things that aren't garbage.

No you just call it "tripe" because you can not debate it with facts, so you resort to mud slinging.