mclumber1

The question is whether the Electoral College and Congress would simply ignore him. If the Electoral College certifies the results, and the Congress accepts the results from the EC, it doesn't really matter. Come January 20th, he's no longer President.

I've heard working at Zappos headquarters is essentially like a giant swingers party.

Yeah, try to convince a pro-choice activist that what states like Alabama are doing with abortion are not tantamount to making abortion illegal.

At least you are being honest.

We had mouth breathing "top siders" on my ship (nuclear powered, mind you) think that the steam from the steam catapults is what powered the steam turbines that powered the ship through the water. They knew there was a nuclear reactor aboard the ship. They understood that it did things. But they couldn't figure out that's where the steam was generated for their catapults AND the steam turbines. Kal, were you an Aviation Mechanic aboard the USS Nimitz from 2004-2009?

Based on how "well regulated" was used in language at the time of the founding of the nation.

Grenades are weapons that can be used by a single infantryman. However they are indiscriminate in their use. I would say it's fine to restrict them the same way other explosives are restricted. It is possible to own live grenades in the US. They are classified as destructive devices and require a background check and a $200 tax stamp for each grenade though.

Well regulated means in "good working order". Unrestricted would mean arms that are capable of being used by a single infantryman. Flamethrowers? Yes (already legal in most states). 50 Cal snipers? Yes (already legal in most states). Tanks? Yes (But this is starting to diverge from the idea of being able to be operated by a single person). I would add that indiscriminate weapons, such as explosives, bombs, poison gas, bio weapons would not be considered arms under this interpretation. That isn't to say that a person's 2nd amendment rights cannot be removed. Removal of rights is completely constitutional via due process. But it should be done on a case by case basis, not on a mass scale.

I take an originalist stance on both amendments. The second amendment recognizes (not grants) that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Since you can't have a militia without a armed populace, the populace needs to be unrestricted from ownership of firearms. Being in the militia isn't a prerequisite to being able to own arms. Every free person is endowed with that right - just reference the Dred Scott decision for historical context if you'd like. The 14th Amendment recognizes the gaping hole that slavery and the 13th Amendment could have caused (and likely would have caused if not for Federal intervention via the 14th). It made the 4 million people who were previously property, and were not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country, citizens.

Unemployment is already sky high there. Don't contribute to it pls.

You're right. They were property up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Most of those slaves were descendants of other slaves - they were beholden to no nation or subject to the jurisdiction of any nation besides the one where they were held as slaves, America. It stand to reason (in my mind) that the 14th amendment was written explicitly to grant these freed slaves citizenship.

That doesn't explain the Indian citizenship act of 1924 though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

Slaves were not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country. The 14th amendment ensured the children of freed slaves would be granted citizenship.

reddit.com/r/nottheonion ????

We are a nation of immigrants. We should continue to be so. I just don't think the 14th says what you (and everyone else ITT, lol) think it says. I hope that people don't assume I take this stance as some anti-immigrant or racial sentiment. YMMV doe. I'll try and respond later tonight to expand on my reasoning, but I think we've had this debate before - with the corresponding gang-bang of my logic/line of thinking.

The baby of two foreigners is subject to the jurisdiction of their parents nation, I would argue.

I actually disagree. I don't believe the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship. That being said, I don't have a problem with birthright citizenship, but it should be born from legislation and not interpretation of the 14th amendment.

After we sold our house earlier this year, we put the equity into a money market account at our bank. It's a 1% return, which isn't great, but it's better than what you'd get in a normal savings account.

To teach them a lesson!

lol

Very fine people on both sides

When I was a career counselor in the Navy, and people would complain to me about how much life on the ship/in the Navy sucked, I told them that as long as they don't think about how much it sucks, it's easier to get through it. Moral of the story: Try not to dwell on the negative things in life - especially things you have little to no control over.

Maybe both? That part of Henderson is probably one of the worst in the city.