Trump to enforce 14th Amendment

[diesel1959]

Suffice to say, Trump and some legal scholars could be absolutely mistaken about the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants; however, there is NO Supreme Court precedent that dictates that is the case. There is only Supreme Court precedent that dictates that the children born here of legal resident aliens are US citizens.

It might very well be the case that if the Supreme Court ever hears this precise question which, has become ripe due what has been occurring in our nation for the last several decades, and issue a decision that extends Wong Kim Ark and says that the executive's definition under the 14A is incorrect. But suffice to say that SCOTUS has merely been awaiting a proper case to come before the Supreme Court for them to decide upon it.

Zinc--if you think Wong Ark Kim answers this precise question, you're not very willing to parse out what was actually decided and what is merely accepted obiter.

Most conservative folks agree that birthright citizenship ought not be granted for folks who come here illegally to have children here. No one has known how to make this happen because no one has been willing to touch the third rail of the sacred cow of immigration law. Trump spent a good part of the first year-and-a-half of his term trying to get the Congress to address immigration reform. They couldn't get it done. So now, Trump is intentionally poking the bear and going to issue an EO that will surely cause lawsuits. You can't say that he's changing the law by EO, as he's only changing the way that already-existing law is understood, based upon a question left open for 120 years by the Supreme Court. You can agree to disagree, but the Supremes haven't spoken on this issue. This just might get it done.

 

[Kingarthur777]

Do you have a sound bite of Trump actually saying he wants to do away with the 14th amendment? I can't find it. Or is that your interpretation?

I realize some people have a Cult of Personality when it comes to public figures they adore. I am not one of them. What comes out of a person's mouth, and their demeanor I pay close attention to. Old habits die hard. I also, unless I just don't want to deal with it that day, check out various news sources? Why? A currently retired Deportation Officer, formerly an SSA like I was, and my senior, would bust my chops if I didn't know what happened in the news everyday. He said I needed to pay attention, because information often leads to a case. So, force of habit, I look at both sides a good chunk of the day, usually while doing other things. He said it himself, like every stupid twitter he has ever made (unprofessional for a President and world leader), and then the commentators all jumped on it like flies on poop, and I had to listen to that half the day, how he stated (and they played it over and over again) bear in mind this is FOX, who loves him all day, every day. Attorney's saying the SCOTUS will knock it down before the ink dries on the EO. It turned into the usual circus routine, because the POTUS said something new and stupid today.

Honestly, I think he is narcissistic and cannot help himself. He has always been surrounded by people he could push around and bevies of sycophants. That doesn't do well, for a guy who says silly things all the time, and declares how wonderful they are. I swear at every rally, he reminds me of a 3 year old with a wooden spoon and pot, banging it and telling people how great he is. When he is on the stump for someone else, it is all about him, and the republican candidate who? Oh, yeah, vote for that guy as well.

Frankly, I am glad Obama is gone. Honestly, I think America deserves better on both fronts. I have tried and tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt over and over again. I am not seeing anything but MTLGA (Make Trump Look Great Again). I haven't forgotten the TV show, and Beauty Pageants, the book that failed at Barnes and Nobles and was on sale for .99 and no one wanted it. The Trump University that he defrauded, or the various Towers that investors also got screwed on. The comments about groping whomever he wanted. The sexual comments he made about his own daughter.

Despite all that I have tried, really tried. Although, he has made a habit of screwing people over both literally and figuratively when he announced he was going to do the same to a section of the Bill of Rights, I have a very serious problem with that.

 

[easy rider]

People born in the United States aren't immigrants, legal or otherwise. They're US citizens. People naturalized in the United States were legal immigrants, but are now citizens.

And that's what needs to be addressed, it's too vague. Trump even admits that he expects courts to block his EO, but that's how he will get it to the supreme court for a ruling on that vagueness.

 

[diesel1959]

Then tell me what it says, wise guy.

That's for the Court to decide . . . and so far, they haven't. An EO by the President basically takes the chance, it stimulates lawsuits to be filed and feeds the system to get the Supreme Court to actually answer the question. Because they are the only ones that get to do that.

 

[diesel1959]

Unless you are a Trumptsky, it does indeed.

I don't care that Trump says it . . . I've long believed that this is an unsettled question. But most pols are too big of a pûssy to touch the third rail.


So, my feelings on this issue have NOTHING to do with Trump or a "cult of personality" or anything like that. It has to do with the legal question. And lawsuits are the proper vehicle to get the Court to answer legal questions. And then, if Congress or the People don't like what the Court has said, then Congress can pass a law or pass an amendment for ratification, or the People can press their own States to call for a Convention of States. That's the system, folks. That's how it works.

 

[Younggun]

So much stupid...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

I realize some people have a Cult of Personality when it comes to public figures they adore. I am not one of them. What comes out of a person's mouth, and their demeanor I pay close attention to. Old habits die hard. I also, unless I just don't want to deal with it that day, check out various news sources? Why? A currently retired Deportation Officer, formerly an SSA like I was, and my senior, would bust my chops if I didn't know what happened in the news everyday. He said I needed to pay attention, because information often leads to a case. So, force of habit, I look at both sides a good chunk of the day, usually while doing other things. He said it himself, like every stupid twitter he has ever made (unprofessional for a President and world leader), and then the commentators all jumped on it like flies on poop, and I had to listen to that half the day, how he stated (and they played it over and over again) bear in mind this is FOX, who loves him all day, every day. Attorney's saying the SCOTUS will knock it down before the ink dries on the EO. It turned into the usual circus routine, because the POTUS said something new and stupid today.

Honestly, I think he is narcissistic and cannot help himself. He has always been surrounded by people he could push around and bevies of sycophants. That doesn't do well, for a guy who says silly things all the time, and declares how wonderful they are. I swear at every rally, he reminds me of a 3 year old with a wooden spoon and pot, banging it and telling people how great he is. When he is on the stump for someone else, it is all about him, and the republican candidate who? Oh, yeah, vote for that guy as well.

Frankly, I am glad Obama is gone. Honestly, I think America deserves better on both fronts. I have tried and tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt over and over again. I am not seeing anything but MTLGA (Make Trump Look Great Again). I haven't forgotten the TV show, and Beauty Pageants, the book that failed at Barnes and Nobles and was on sale for .99 and no one wanted it. The Trump University that he defrauded, or the various Towers that investors also got screwed on. The comments about groping whomever he wanted. The sexual comments he made about his own daughter.

Despite all that I have tried, really tried. Although, he has made a habit of screwing people over both literally and figuratively when he announced he was going to do the same to a section of the Bill of Rights, I have a very serious problem with that.

You only look at the surface of things and draw your conclusions from that. You believe you're right and I can see your mind is closed on the matter. I've seen that in other threads and so I won't attempt to answer your rambling.

 

[Kar98]

That's for the Court to decide . . . and so far, they haven't. An EO by the President basically takes the chance, it stimulates lawsuits to be filed and feeds the system to get the Supreme Court to actually answer the question. Because they are the only ones that get to do that.

I seem to recall the Wong Kim Ark case in which SCOTUS decided the 14th/section 1 covers everyone born in the U.S. to parents who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, regardless of the parents' citizenship...

 

[diesel1959]

I seem to recall the Wong Kim Ark case in which SCOTUS decided the 14th/section 1 covers everyone born in the U.S. to parents who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, regardless of the parents' citizenship...

The case is only decided upon the facts presented to the Court. In Wong Kim Ark, the child was born of legal resident aliens. It ONLY answered the question before it. The Court did NOT answer the question of what might be their decision if the child had been born of illegal immigrants. As a matter of fact, illegal immigration wasn't really much of a thing back then or when the 14A was ratified. However, the last three or four decades have shown that there's a gaping hole in our law and that Birthright Tourists and Anchor Babies have become a serious problem We've gone from something like 30,000 children born each year to illegal immigrants, to something like 300,000 children born each year to illegal immigrants. That's a one-hundred-fold magnification of the problem. Therefore, the long-standing legal question left open in Wong Kim Ark needs to be addressed.

 

[Kar98]

The case is only decided upon the facts presented to the Court. In Wong Kim Ark, the child was born of legal resident aliens. It ONLY answered the question before it. The Court did NOT answer the question of what might be their decision if the child had been born of illegal immigrants. As a matter of fact, illegal immigration wasn't really much of a thing back then or when the 14A was ratified. However, the last three or four decades have shown that there's a gaping hole in our law and that Birthright Tourists and Anchor Babies have become a serious problem We've gone from something like 30,000 children born each year to illegal immigrants, to something like 300,000 children born each year to illegal immigrants. That's a one-hundred-fold magnification of the problem. Therefore, the long-standing legal question left open in Wong Kim Ark needs to be addressed.

That slope is more slippery than Connie Chung.

The Second Amendment was only meant for single shot muzzle loaders with a ROF of three per minute! Not for high assault fast capacity cop killer saturday night glocks!!

Even if I 100% agreed with your opinion on this (and you may have gathered the idea that I might not), I'd still pick a fight with it, because it opens everything else up to "interpretation" too.

 

[easy rider]

That slope is more slippery than Connie Chung.

The Second Amendment was only meant for single shot muzzle loaders with a ROF of three per minute! Not for high assault fast capacity cop killer saturday night glocks!!

Even if I 100% agreed with your opinion on this (and you may have gathered the idea that I might not), I'd still pick a fight with it, because it opens everything else up to "interpretation" too.

And that's why we have a justice system.

 

[diesel1959]

That slope is more slippery than Connie Chung.

The Second Amendment was only meant for single shot muzzle loaders with a ROF of three per minute! Not for high assault fast capacity cop killer saturday night glocks!!

Even if I 100% agreed with your opinion on this (and you may have gathered the idea that I might not), I'd still pick a fight with it, because it opens everything else up to "interpretation" too.

The question of whether the 2A enshrined an individual right or a state right laid unanswered for over 200 years. Folks on the left believed that it was settled law that it was a militia right and did not grant a civil right upon individuals. It took someone filing a lawsuit in the District of Columbia to get Heller to happen--which stated once and for all that the 2A enshrined an individual right as between individuals and the federal government. And then it took someone in Chicago to file a lawsuit to get McDonald to happen--which incorporated the individual right as against the States under the doctrine of Incorporation under the 14A due process. So you see, sometimes it takes a LONG time to get the Supremes to speak their mind. And they won't issue advisory opinions. They need a lawsuit that asks a proper question, is ripe, and is not moot. This is one way to make it happen.

 

[Kar98]

The question of whether the 2A enshrined an individual right or a state right laid unanswered for over 200 years. Folks on the left believed that it was settled law that it was a militia right and did not grant a civil right upon individuals. It took someone filing a lawsuit in the District of Columbia to get Heller to happen--which stated once and for all that the 2A enshrined an individual right. And then it took someone in Chicago to file a lawsuit to get McDonald to happen--which incorporation the individual right as against the States under the doctrine of Incorporation under the 14A due process. So you see, sometimes it takes a LONG time to get the Supremes to speak their mind. And they won't issue advisory opinions. They need a lawsuit that asks a proper question, is ripe, and is not moot. This is one way to make it happen.

You may or may not have gathered that I was talking about the guns in question, not who gets to bear them. See, again, US vs Miller, where "arms" fit for a "well organized militia" would have to be of the same kind as carried by the US military, and counsel for the US claimed a sawed off shottie wasn't a military arm and thus NFA34 was (and still is, in 2018) constitutional, since neither defendant nor counsel for same showed up.

 

[diesel1959]

You may or may not have gathered that I was talking about the guns in question, not who gets to bear them. See, again, US vs Miller, where "arms" fit for a "well organized militia" would have to be of the same kind as carried by the US military, and counsel for the US claimed a sawed off shottie wasn't a military arm and thus NFA34 was (and still is, in 2018) constitutional, since neither defendant nor counsel for same showed up.

And I would maintain that a case challenging the Miller decision will one fine day face a far more receptive Supreme Court. But it'll take a lawsuit and someone willing to hang it all out there. Which means legal jeopardy or a politician hanging it all out there going against what pols do--try to keep getting re-elected. Especially seeing as how it is clearly the case that the military (and law enforcement) are known to use SBSs in specialized roles in doing their jobs.

 

[Kar98]

And I would maintain that a case challenging the Miller decision will one fine day face a far more receptive Supreme Court. But it'll take a lawsuit and someone willing to hang it all out there. Which means legal jeopardy or a politician hanging it all out there going against what pols do--try to keep getting re-elected. Especially seeing as how it is clearly the case that the military (and law enforcement) are known to use SBSs in specialized roles in doing their jobs.

Even in WW1 US military was using SBS to clear trenches and to guard POWs.

Anyway, enough arguing on the internet for today. Come on over for a beer!

 

[Renegade]

Even in WW1 US military was using SBS to clear trenches and to guard POWs.

Bad Facts, Make Bad Law.

 

[AustinN4]

View attachment 152807

Look like an amber ale.

 

[Kar98]

Look like an amber ale.

In fact, there's two of them. Three if you count the one in the background.

 

[diesel1959]

Even in WW1 US military was using SBS to clear trenches and to guard POWs.

Anyway, enough arguing on the internet for today. Come on over for a beer!

View attachment 152807

I'm with you on that! :cheers:

 

[AustinN4]

In facts, that's two of them. Three if you count the one in the background.

Who brewed them?