Trump to enforce 14th Amendment

[vmax]

DJT

“We are stopping people at the border, this is an invasion and nobody is even questioning that”

“Anybody throwing stones , rocks like they did to Mexico, and the Mexican Military , Mexican Police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we will consider that a firearm”



We have needing a president that puts a stop to this crap for 30 years. Now we have one.

Trump!

 

[Ozzman]

. Levin and Horowitz, constitutional law attorneys much smarter than me, say it can be done by EO. That is good enough for me.

Well, when the next President (that is not Donald Trump) leans more left than BO, signs an EO temporarily banning the ownership and use of firearms.... please don't cry foul.

OR,

If that same President enacts a EO allowing all peace officers to randomly pick any home, vehicle, or private area and search it for anything illegal without probable cause.... please don't put up a fight. As stated, it should be good enough for you.

________________________________________________
I am as conservative as many of you out there, but I am a true Constitutionalist at heart. I find it hypocritical many of the naysayers here fight for our 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th to the bitter end, and yet we cheer for an EO that will block the 14th. Each of our 27 amendments to the Constitution should be defended equally. They are all important, and hold us high above the rest of the world.

My $0.02

 

[Wildcat Diva]

You say “block” while I say support and finally correctly enforce.

 

[zincwarrior]

DJT

“We are stopping people at the border, this is an invasion and nobody is even questioning that”

“Anybody throwing stones , rocks like they did to Mexico, and the Mexican Military , Mexican Police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we will consider that a firearm”



We have needing a president that puts a stop to this crap for 30 years. Now we have one.

Trump!

I don't believe they can be armed actually.

 

[easy rider]

Well, when the next President (that is not Donald Trump) leans more left than BO, signs an EO temporarily banning the ownership and use of firearms.... please don't cry foul.

OR,

If that same President enacts a EO allowing all peace officers to randomly pick any home, vehicle, or private area and search it for anything illegal without probable cause.... please don't put up a fight. As stated, it should be good enough for you.

________________________________________________
I am as conservative as many of you out there, but I am a true Constitutionalist at heart. I find it hypocritical many of the naysayers here fight for our 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th to the bitter end, and yet we cheer for an EO that will block the 14th. Each of our 27 amendments to the Constitution should be defended equally. They are all important, and hold us high above the rest of the world.

My $0.02

I guess if Trump tried to remove the NFA through an EO on the 2nd you'd be against him for tampering with the 2nd.

 

[diesel1959]

That's not how jurisdiction works. Illegal aliens are subject to the same criminal and civil jurisdiction as legal noncitizens and citizens.

The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something different today than it did when the author wrote that prospective amendment. In fact, he stated what he meant by it. That conjunctive clause would not have been included if the Congress and the ratifying States had merely meant to bring about jus soli.

 

[Kingarthur777]

Unfortunately, yes, he said he wanted to eliminated the 14th Amendment by EO, which carried FOX all day with that. Frankly, he thinks he is running a Company and not a Country. He made the same gaff with the Senate, when he told them what to do. Mitch McConel had to remind Trump that the President doesn't order the Senate to do anything.

 

[Younggun]

I don't believe they can be armed actually.

It’s already been stated that any soldiers who are normally armed while executing their duties will be armed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

I don't believe they can be armed actually.

They absolutely CAN be armed. However, they may NOT use arms against United States Citizens except in quite extraordinary situations.

 

[Younggun]

I guess if Trump tried to remove the NFA through an EO on the 2nd you'd be against him for tampering with the 2nd.

To be fair, that wouldn’t actually be messing with the second. It would be countering a law, not an amendment. And if anything, expanding the right instead of limiting it.


Sorry to disagree, just not a good example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

That's not how jurisdiction works. Illegal aliens are subject to the same criminal and civil jurisdiction as legal noncitizens and citizens.

What you and I learned in law school about (1) subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) jurisdiction over the body is not exactly what the writer of the 14A was referring to.

 

[easy rider]

To be fair, that wouldn’t actually be messing with the second. It would be countering a law, not an amendment. And if anything, expanding the right instead of limiting it.


Sorry to disagree, just not a good example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What he proposes isn't changing the 14th either, it's clarifying how it's written.

 

[vmax]

I don't believe they can be armed actually.

Why not?
They are American soldiers protecting our border.

Is the border patrol unarmed?
Are the F15s that protect our airspace unarmed?

 

[diesel1959]

But that is what the legal argument is all about. Criminal jurisdiction vs citizenship jurisdiction. The 2 are NOT the same.
When you travel, you are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of where you are. You are still a citizen, and subject to the jurisdiction, of your home country.

Slaves where brought here against their will. They did not choose to come here illegally. Many, if not most, where born to parents that had never seen their home country. Those are the people the 14th was intended for. NOT for people that come here illegally and do not intend to become citizens of and for the benefit of the U.S..

At this point, only 2 ways to answer this question.
A Constitutional Amendment.
A SCOTUS decision.

In our present political climate, even Trump knows that the first is not a viable option.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

<this> legal immigrants have lawfully submitted to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and embraced this nation is a way that illegal immigrants have not. It has to do with the beginnings of allegiance and belonging . . . right up unto the point of naturalization.

 

[Kingarthur777]

I guess if Trump tried to remove the NFA through an EO on the 2nd you'd be against him for tampering with the 2nd.

That is bassackwards. The NFA messed with the Second Amendment. To make the analogy more accurate, it would be like him deciding to abolish the Second Amendment by EO.

 

[Younggun]

That is bassackwards. The NFA messed with the Second Amendment. To make the analogy more accurate, it would be like him deciding to abolish the Second Amendment by EO.

That’s just as inaccurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

It addresses the part of suspected divided loyalty of legal immigrants, both LPRs and naturalized citizens, and US born citizens, and whether they are "real" citizens of the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and if the president can declare people born in the US to un-citizens suspected of all kinds of mischief.

But, keep in mind that almost ALL of the folks affected by Korematsu had been legal immigrants. When FDR placed them in camps and the Supreme Court blessed it in that decision, they worked harm upon folks who had (by today's lens) no reason for their "allegiance/loyalty/etc." to be questioned. They had completely submitted to the jurisdiction of the United States. They weren't illegal aliens.

 

[easy rider]

That is bassackwards. The NFA messed with the Second Amendment. To make the analogy more accurate, it would be like him deciding to abolish the Second Amendment by EO.

The NFA was an act that affected the 2nd amendment just like the INA was an act that affected the 14th amendment. You like to keep going on as if Trump is abolishing the 14th amendment which is bunk.

 

[Younggun]

The NFA was an act that affected the 2nd amendment just like the INA was an act that affected the 14th amendment. You like to keep going on as if Trump is abolishing the 14th amendment which is bunk.

Part of the NPC program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Weaponologist]

I haven't read all the responses, yet.. But as for the 14th Amendmen. It was added for the sole purpose that all Black people and their children be Known as Legal Citizens so they could Vote and it even specify's that its not speaking of people from other country's. or Outsides who feel they could sneak in have children that would be considered legal Citizens. If the Parents aren't legal than neither are the children. If I understand it correctly. The 14th came at a time when people of color where still being denied their legal rights... It was never designed to help this Mob heading this way.....