ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP
" It's an issue of interpretation. The 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship rights to the descendants of slaves, not to provide a bennie for criminal aliens. The current interpretation vis a vis illegal aliens is actual pretty recent, dating back to the '70s, as I recall. Anyone who wants to can look it up. But it's NOT gonna stand with contructionalist Justices. =^[.]^= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie |
|
" The question is whether SCOTUS correctly interpreted the Constitution when they expanded the 14th amendment to its current state. From speech of one of the people that wrote the 14th Sen Jacob Howard, it is clear SCOTUS intent was not his intent.   Whether it was Congress' intent (which would be judged from all the other comments made during the passing of the 14th) is not necessarily the same thing. Most people don't realize that some of what they take as their "rights' under the 14th amendment, would hardly exist if it weren't for battles between the states, the railroads and the federal government that expanded them into a much broader interpretation. https://www.questia.com/library/2054486/the-iron-horse-and-the-constitution-the-railroads PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama on Oct 30, 2018, 3:33:01 PM
| |
|
Trump just cast an ancient Egyptian spell on the media. What did he mean by this?
 GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
| |
"*calls upon Kek to unhex Brett Kavanaugh* I know spells. I have the best spells. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Oct 30, 2018, 7:52:28 PM
|
|
|
Regarding the 14th amendment:
"Intent" should be irrelevant to a textualist jurisprudence of the conservative sort. Reading into arguments outside of the text itself is how the Supreme Court used to legislate from the bench, and more recently was the argument used to conflate Trump's travel ban with a ban targeted at Muslims. Forget intent unless you want to wallow in hypocrisy. Textually, the question is whether persons within the borders of the United States, but without the authorization of the United States, are under its jurisdiction. The wording of the 14th Amendment clearly implies that it is possible to be within the borders but not subject to US jurisdiction, as otherwise the jurisdiction requirement would be redundant. However, it could be said that foreign diplomats and their families, who enjoy diplomatic immunity, satisfy this case. So the question is whether unauthorized residents also are part of this group. If so, this raises problems of its own. If the US has no jurisdiction against an unauthorized resident, then a federal prosecutor cannot take such a person to court with the hope of a conviction — the judge should dismiss the case because the US does not hold jurisdiction over the defendant. Yet the US has had no problem in assuming jurisdiction over unauthorized residents in many previous legal proceedings. Even deportation follows due process, so if not subject to jurisdiction, by what argument can the Government claim standing over the unauthorized resident to resolve their trespass? (Perhaps the same way it expels unwanted diplomats, but I don't know how that works.) I can see a 14th Amendment challenge going only two possible ways: either birthright citizenship is upheld, or some number of conservative justices abandon textualism and succumb to the temptation of legislating from the bench. Both of those are losing outcomes, and the latter — the apparent win — is arguably the worst outcome of all. I acknowledge that birthright citizenship was certainly not the intent of the designers of the 14th Amendment and likely not the intent of those others who helped vote it into existence. But it is possible to do things one does not intend to do, and in so doing create realities one never envisaged. This would be an example. If I was a one-man SCOTUS, I'd explicitly put in my opinion a suggestion to ratify a new amendment amending the amendment, one that better clarifies the original intent, along with wording suggestions, and then put the ball back in Congress' court. But I certainly wouldn't dismantle the 14th by judicial fiat, and I can't imagine an interpretation of an unmolested 14th under which birthright citizenship isn't a thing. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Oct 31, 2018, 12:06:57 AM
|
|
" Already taken care of: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/armstrong/exorcist-and-catholics-respond-to-curse-against-kavanaugh Last edited by Khoranth on Oct 31, 2018, 6:12:18 AM
| |
|
Let's not play the lefts game of words mean whatever you want them to. Language is very clear.
"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." If you don't like it amend the Constitution like you're supposed to when you don't like provisions of it. Executive order is a joke. Congress action is a joke. Even a court nixing it is a joke. Like Scottie said this is activism and why US Constitution is barley toilet paper today. Flimsy and falling apart. The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of land. Immutable - it's not a "living Constitution" other than amendment process which makes it changeable to whatever we want. You want to ban Anchor babies, guns, or give free health care you can do it. The right way. Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Oct 31, 2018, 1:15:32 PM
| |
" Who's the one playing word games? "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." Last edited by MrCoo1 on Oct 31, 2018, 1:13:32 PM
| |
|
nvmd just realized u trolling
Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Oct 31, 2018, 1:20:54 PM
| |
|
Secret groups definitely use code words, however the whole "dogwhistle politics" term is funny since the extreme majority of the time there is no hidden message and the dogs are the ones reacting to it furiously. They've been well trained, conditioned to react to something and think it can only mean that.
This is why /pol/ had a blast with things like the ok sign and milk (many others but I forget). I at least hope that some are "just" "secretly" too proud to admit they've been fooled in such a ridiculous way. Oblivious
|
