Jump to content

Senile old man elected to stand for the Constitution wants to sign an executive order effectively rendering useless an amendment to said Constitution


Recommended Posts

I've argued here before that the 14th Amendment doesn't actually provide for birthright citizenship.  One of the biggest arguments against the interpretation that the 14th Amendment does that, is the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  The act gave citizenship rights to Native Americans for the first time. 

 

That being said, if Trump were to go through with an Executive Order, it would likely be unpopular among  a majority of voters, and would further invigorate the left to vote against the GOP next week and in 2020. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I've argued here before that the 14th Amendment doesn't actually provide for birthright citizenship.  One of the biggest arguments against the interpretation that the 14th Amendment does that, is the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  The act gave citizenship rights to Native Americans for the first time. 

 

That being said, if Trump were to go through with an Executive Order, it would likely be unpopular among  a majority of voters, and would further invigorate the left to vote against the GOP next week and in 2020. 

Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations. Big difference.

 

The 14th amendment is quite clear, if born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction there of, you're a citizen. How can someone born in the US not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics "Originalists" are going to use to deny the words that are written on the fucking paper.

 

It's going to make the ludicrous reasoning used to justify Roe v. Wade seem positively sound in comparison.

 

If the militia clause means absolutely nothing, then I am sure they'll get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations. Big difference.

 

The 14th amendment is quite clear, if born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction there of, you're a citizen. How can someone born in the US not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

 

Yes, Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations.  

 

It's the "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that gives the anti-birthright people traction.  The kiddos born here are citizens of their parent's country, therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Yes, Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations.  

 

It's the "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that gives the anti-birthright people traction.  The kiddos born here are citizens of their parent's country, therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  

If you are in the US you are subject to US jurisdiction, not to any other State otherwise the laws of other States can be enforced in the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't even be talking about this. 

 

Just like deploying troops to the border, this is a political stunt intended to gin up feelings before the election. Now we're all talking about whether or not he can do this (he can't) as opposed to the mere fact that he's using troops as political props and is threatening to defy the constitution as a stunt. This is an outgrowth of his racist and nativist white-nationalism and it should be covered as such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If you are in the US you are subject to US jurisdiction, not to any other State otherwise the laws of other States can be enforced in the US

 

No, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which you are a citizen, but that doesn't mean that the foreign nation can just come in to ours and start giving orders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which you are a citizen, but that doesn't mean that the foreign nation can just come in to ours and start giving orders. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

 

You're in the US, you're subject to US jurisdiction. Otherwise US laws don't apply to you in the US, which is fucking stupid. If you're not subject to US jurisdiction, you can't be tried in US courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics "Originalists" are going to use to deny the words that are written on the fucking paper.

 

It's going to make the ludicrous reasoning used to justify Roe v. Wade seem positively sound in comparison.

Originalism is not about what is in the text, it’s about what the people who wrote and passed it meant at the time.

 

Textualism is what you’re referring to.

 

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

 

You're in the US, you're subject to US jurisdiction. Otherwise US laws don't apply to you in the US, which is fucking stupid. If you're not subject to US jurisdiction, you can't be tried in US courts.

 

“Babies can’t be tried in US courts” - @mclumber1, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will reiterate what I said:

 

1. I don't believe that birthright citizenship is a thing based on my interpretation of the 14th amendment and based on legislation previously passed by Congress.

 

2.  By making this an issue, Trump is on shaky ground electorally - this will no doubt invigorate the left. 

 

3.  If pursued the wrong way, the Supreme Court could permanently decide against the anti-birthright opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Originalism is not about what is in the text, it’s about what the people who wrote and passed it meant at the time.

 

Textualism is what you’re referring to.

 

 

“Babies can’t be tried in US courts” - @mclumber1, probably.

 

I would hope that people aren't taking my opinion as an affirmation of some racist viewpoint.  But it doesn't sound like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I would hope that people aren't taking my opinion as an affirmation of some racist viewpoint.  But it doesn't sound like it. 

I don’t think you are affirming a racist viewpoint, I was just ribbin’ ya. I do disagree with your assessment of the 14th and it’s legal history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I will reiterate what I said:

 

1. I don't believe that birthright citizenship is a thing based on my interpretation of the 14th amendment and based on legislation previously passed by Congress.

 

2.  By making this an issue, Trump is on shaky ground electorally - this will no doubt invigorate the left. 

 

3.  If pursued the wrong way, the Supreme Court could permanently decide against the anti-birthright opinion. 

 

1. Your interpretation of the 14th is by far the absolute minority when considering what legal scholars believe. 

 

2. And it will invigorate the racists that support Trump. It may even invite further violence against non-whites.

 

3. I don't believe this will amount to anything. I certainly don't believe SCOTUS will reverse plain english. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CayceG said:

We shouldn't even be talking about this. 

 

Just like deploying troops to the border, this is a political stunt intended to gin up feelings before the election. Now we're all talking about whether or not he can do this (he can't) as opposed to the mere fact that he's using troops as political props and is threatening to defy the constitution as a stunt. This is an outgrowth of his racist and nativist white-nationalism and it should be covered as such. 

This!!!!! He's trying to change the topic from his racist bomber murderer white supremacists Nazi friends!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But EMPs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...