Trump to end birthright citizenship

[bamorin]

Oct 30, 2018 23:11:12 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 30, 2018 22:44:11 GMT -5 bamorin said:

does a big rocket count?

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any person born in the U.S.A. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I.

What year were you born?

irrelevant, when was the 14th added? just pointing out that just because the 14th says "born here" didn't mean squat. back to the snyder a moment, It was left up to the states to enact it. The last state to do so was New Mexico in 1964. Funny it took a Republican Senator, to introduce it, and a Republican President to sign it. So you might excuse us from not believing the democrat party is "god's gift" to man.

[AlaCowboy]

Oct 31, 2018 3:39:21 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Oct 30, 2018 20:48:30 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

It is until the Supreme Court rolls on the floor laughing as they rule your EO unconstitutional. Don't you know how government works?

I call BS. It would take months maybe even over a year to even get to the SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court can schedule a hearing in days if necessary. The year 2000 comes to mind.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2018 10:07:26 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Oct 31, 2018 3:39:21 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

I call BS. It would take months maybe even over a year to even get to the SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court can schedule a hearing in days if necessary. The year 2000 comes to mind.

Well virtually everyone including Republicans disagree with you


You can't eliminate a constitutional amendment with a executive order.

[bamorin]

Oct 31, 2018 10:43:38 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Oct 31, 2018 10:07:26 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

The Supreme Court can schedule a hearing in days if necessary. The year 2000 comes to mind.

Well virtually everyone including Republicans disagree with you


You can't eliminate a constitutional amendment with a executive order.

nope, but the supremes can read it any way they like. even apply pretzel logic.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2018 11:28:09 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Oct 31, 2018 10:43:38 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Well virtually everyone including Republicans disagree with you


You can't eliminate a constitutional amendment with a executive order.

nope, but the supremes can read it any way they like. even apply pretzel logic.

Test record?

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 30, 2018 9:57:45 GMT -5 drjensen said:

The first line of the 14th Amendment states: ‘‘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.’’
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

The irony of this is that when it was written and passed, the powers that be, possessed a thing called common sense, no one foresaw "anchor babies." I am also a bit amused that those who are up in arms about this, claiming Trump can't do it because the Constitution says he can't, are the same people who think the Constitution should be changed. Ain't gonna happen!

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 30, 2018 9:57:45 GMT -5 drjensen said:

The first line of the 14th Amendment states: ‘‘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.’’
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

The irony of this is that when it was written and passed, the powers that be, possessed a thing called common sense, no one foresaw "anchor babies." I am also a bit amused that those who are up in arms about this, claiming Trump can't do it because the Constitution says he can't, are the same people who think the Constitution should be changed. Ain't gonna happen!

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

Thank you. Wanted to say that on the other board

If when the 14th amendment was passed they couldn't foresee anchor babies and such

Theres no way hell when they did the 2nd amendment they could've foreseen AR-15s and machine guns etc..

[drjensen]

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 30, 2018 9:57:45 GMT -5 drjensen said:

The first line of the 14th Amendment states: ‘‘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.’’
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

The irony of this is that when it was written and passed, the powers that be, possessed a thing called common sense, no one foresaw "anchor babies." I am also a bit amused that those who are up in arms about this, claiming Trump can't do it because the Constitution says he can't, are the same people who think the Constitution should be changed. Ain't gonna happen!

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

I'm not saying it doesn't. IMO, the reason those who do not want to see anything changed concerning the 2A, is that old adage, "give them and inch and they will take a mile." and with what I have witnessed in history from the liberal faction, that pretty well holds true. Personally, and I am an owner of several firearms, I think there should be background checks, I see no need for high capacity magazines, and definitely no need for fully automatic weapons, and I see in a later post on this thread that CWG has mistakenly included AR15's in this category. An AR15 is not an "assault rifle" and many foolishly believe AR stands for automatic rifle. It does not. Those with any type of mental disorder should not own firearms, but there are also those without a known mental disorder buying weapons, so some type of background check would be acceptable to me. I have nothing to hide so I don't see a problem with it, there are many that do. To me it's a little like if I was stopped by a police officer and he wanted to search my vehicle, I would not have a problem with it cause I have nothing to hide. Others take considerable umbrage with this. Are they right or wrong?

[daleko]

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 30, 2018 9:57:45 GMT -5 drjensen said:

The first line of the 14th Amendment states: ‘‘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.’’
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

The irony of this is that when it was written and passed, the powers that be, possessed a thing called common sense, no one foresaw "anchor babies." I am also a bit amused that those who are up in arms about this, claiming Trump can't do it because the Constitution says he can't, are the same people who think the Constitution should be changed. Ain't gonna happen!

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

If either/both ended up before the SCOTUS, is there anything stopping them from applying the standard equally or unequally?

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 31, 2018 15:53:44 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

Thank you. Wanted to say that on the other board

If when the 14th amendment was passed they couldn't foresee anchor babies and such

Theres no way hell when they did the 2nd amendment they could've foreseen AR-15s and machine guns etc..

The President doesn’t have the authority to overturn a constitutional amendment with an EO. Of that, I’m positive.

The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is what is creating this confusion, and it isn’t as clear as folks are making it sound.

It’s generally accepted that people who are born here are subject to our jurisdiction. The notion that folks with diplomatic immunity aren’t subject to it and illegals aren’t, isn’t as clear, although I think it is a losing argument. But with this SCOTUS.....they might be able to come up with something.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark seems pretty clear to me.

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 31, 2018 16:33:32 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

If either/both ended up before the SCOTUS, is there anything stopping them from applying the standard equally or unequally?

Stopping them? No....except another amendment.

But if they do, the explanation better be pretty damned good.

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 31, 2018 16:07:46 GMT -5 drjensen said:

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

I'm not saying it doesn't. IMO, the reason those who do not want to see anything changed concerning the 2A, is that old adage, "give them and inch and they will take a mile." and with what I have witnessed in history from the liberal faction, that pretty well holds true. Personally, and I am an owner of several firearms, I think there should be background checks, I see no need for high capacity magazines, and definitely no need for fully automatic weapons, and I see in a later post on this thread that CWG has mistakenly included AR15's in this category. An AR15 is not an "assault rifle" and many foolishly believe AR stands for automatic rifle. It does not. Those with any type of mental disorder should not own firearms, but there are also those without a known mental disorder buying weapons, so some type of background check would be acceptable to me. I have nothing to hide so I don't see a problem with it, there are many that do. To me it's a little like if I was stopped by a police officer and he wanted to search my vehicle, I would not have a problem with it cause I have nothing to hide. Others take considerable umbrage with this. Are they right or wrong?

Are they right or wrong to take umbrage? Or are they right or wrong to assert their rights if they see fit?

They’re wrong to take umbrage, IMO....it’s pretty SOP for cops. But they’re correct in asserting their rights, if they choose.

[daleko]

Oct 31, 2018 17:05:52 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 31, 2018 16:33:32 GMT -5 daleko said:

If either/both ended up before the SCOTUS, is there anything stopping them from applying the standard equally or unequally?

Stopping them? No....except another amendment.

But if they do, the explanation better be pretty damned good.

Thanks.

[AlaCowboy]

Oct 31, 2018 10:43:38 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Oct 31, 2018 10:07:26 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

The Supreme Court can schedule a hearing in days if necessary. The year 2000 comes to mind.

Well virtually everyone including Republicans disagree with you


You can't eliminate a constitutional amendment with a executive order.

Correct. But an EO can have the force of law until the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional. Ask Obama. He lost about as many as he won.
An EO can be the prod for either Congress to enact a law or the Supreme Court to rule one way or the other. I think that is why President Trump is touting this at this time.

[AlaCowboy]

Oct 31, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 30, 2018 9:57:45 GMT -5 drjensen said:

The first line of the 14th Amendment states: ‘‘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.’’
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

The irony of this is that when it was written and passed, the powers that be, possessed a thing called common sense, no one foresaw "anchor babies." I am also a bit amused that those who are up in arms about this, claiming Trump can't do it because the Constitution says he can't, are the same people who think the Constitution should be changed. Ain't gonna happen!

Understand your point, but it begs the question....if context matters and “no one could have foreseen” the result....why is that standard not applicable to the 2nd Amendment and the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written in the 18th century?

If the 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to apply to the technological advances of the future and include "the myriad of weapons that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen at the time it was written" then the 1st Amendment wasn't meant to apply to, say, television, radio, or the internet. There goes 99% of the free speech nowadays.
I can see the logic in regulating the ownership of fully automatic weapons, bazookas, and the like. But just because a weapon can fire faster than a muzzle loader doesn't necessarily mean it should be banned. I have a 7-shot .22 rifle. One shot every time I pull the trigger. But I can fire those seven bullets in about 5 seconds. Should it be banned?