Trump to end birthright citizenship

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 31, 2018 20:41:06 GMT -5 AlaCowboy 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 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?

I’m not suggesting any sort of approach to either amendment.

My point was merely that it rings pretty hollow to suggest that context matters when we’re discussing one amendment as to being somehow inapplicable due to the wildly different circumstances of the day, but then on the other hand, dismiss context entirely and suggesting that the “words plainly mean what they say” when it comes to another amendment.

I’ve always been very clear that no amendment is absolute. They just aren’t. There are exceptions to every single one. Hell, the first amendment says plainly “Congress shall make no law....”, but we know for a fact that isn’t true.

The same wiggle room exists for the 2nd, and the 14th.

Other than the problem of it scaring the shit out of anyone that any POTUS can blithely suggest that he can simply suspend a constitutional amendment with an EO....here’s a major concern....

How do you simply revoke a constitutional right of citizenship to someone who, up to this point, had had it from birth, assuming they were born here? How is that fair or in any way constitutional?

Because in all honesty, if we go back far enough, you could effectively find a point in everyone’s family tree where citizenship would be questionable. It casts doubt on the validity of a significant percentage of citizens.

If one wanted to do it proactively, I can envision a little more traction, but at the same time, essentially for that to work, the government would presumably have to admit that it doesn’t have full jurisdiction over that child....and I don’t see how it can simply do that.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2018 20:41:06 GMT -5 AlaCowboy 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 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?

Five seconds for 7 rounds? My Marlin 60 .22LR semi-auto rifle holds 18 and fires as fast as I can pull the trigger - easily done in five seconds. Scary stuff!

[AlaCowboy]

Oct 31, 2018 21:09:46 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Oct 31, 2018 20:41:06 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

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?

Five seconds for 7 rounds? My Marlin 60 .22LR semi-auto rifle holds 18 and fires as fast as I can pull the trigger - easily done in five seconds. Scary stuff!

Well, I usually aim for center of target, not to punch holes all over the paper.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2018 21:01:45 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 31, 2018 20:41:06 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

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?

I’m not suggesting any sort of approach to either amendment.

My point was merely that it rings pretty hollow to suggest that context matters when we’re discussing one amendment as to being somehow inapplicable due to the wildly different circumstances of the day, but then on the other hand, dismiss context entirely and suggesting that the “words plainly mean what they say” when it comes to another amendment.

I’ve always been very clear that no amendment is absolute. They just aren’t. There are exceptions to every single one. Hell, the first amendment says plainly “Congress shall make no law....”, but we know for a fact that isn’t true.

The same wiggle room exists for the 2nd, and the 14th.

Other than the problem of it scaring the shit out of anyone that any POTUS can blithely suggest that he can simply suspend a constitutional amendment with an EO....here’s a major concern....

How do you simply revoke a constitutional right of citizenship to someone who, up to this point, had had it from birth, assuming they were born here? How is that fair or in any way constitutional?

Because in all honesty, if we go back far enough, you could effectively find a point in everyone’s family tree where citizenship would be questionable. It casts doubt on the validity of a significant percentage of citizens.

If one wanted to do it proactively, I can envision a little more traction, but at the same time, essentially for that to work, the government would presumably have to admit that it doesn’t have full jurisdiction over that child....and I don’t see how it can simply do that.

Lol I read that if Trump would do this

Every single one of his kids would no longer be US citizens

[Walter]

Nov 1, 2018 3:38:27 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Oct 31, 2018 21:01:45 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

I’m not suggesting any sort of approach to either amendment.

My point was merely that it rings pretty hollow to suggest that context matters when we’re discussing one amendment as to being somehow inapplicable due to the wildly different circumstances of the day, but then on the other hand, dismiss context entirely and suggesting that the “words plainly mean what they say” when it comes to another amendment.

I’ve always been very clear that no amendment is absolute. They just aren’t. There are exceptions to every single one. Hell, the first amendment says plainly “Congress shall make no law....”, but we know for a fact that isn’t true.

The same wiggle room exists for the 2nd, and the 14th.

Other than the problem of it scaring the shit out of anyone that any POTUS can blithely suggest that he can simply suspend a constitutional amendment with an EO....here’s a major concern....

How do you simply revoke a constitutional right of citizenship to someone who, up to this point, had had it from birth, assuming they were born here? How is that fair or in any way constitutional?

Because in all honesty, if we go back far enough, you could effectively find a point in everyone’s family tree where citizenship would be questionable. It casts doubt on the validity of a significant percentage of citizens.

If one wanted to do it proactively, I can envision a little more traction, but at the same time, essentially for that to work, the government would presumably have to admit that it doesn’t have full jurisdiction over that child....and I don’t see how it can simply do that.

Lol I read that if Trump would do this

Every single one of his kids would no longer be US citizens

Not quite true. The bastard child conceived via adultery was to an American mother, Marla Maples.
But the point is made, whether true or not.
Conceivably, if the 14th was repealed, a new law would take its place. That new law could send Don Jr to The Czech Republic as the spawn of a woman without a green card (assuming that was her legal status at the time. Her exact date of legalization is in dispute).
The notion is, of course, ridiculous, as is the entire dumbass idea, but hey, if Trump wants to go there, let's do.
Let us demand to see times and dates to ascertain if Jr can legally be granted citizenship.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 1, 2018 7:42:49 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 1, 2018 3:38:27 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Lol I read that if Trump would do this

Every single one of his kids would no longer be US citizens

Not quite true. The bastard child conceived via adultery was to an American mother, Marla Maples.
But the point is made, whether true or not.
Conceivably, if the 14th was repealed, a new law would take its place. That new law could send Don Jr to The Czech Republic as the spawn of a woman without a green card (assuming that was her legal status at the time. Her exact date of legalization is in dispute).
The notion is, of course, ridiculous, as is the entire dumbass idea, but hey, if Trump wants to go there, let's do.
Let us demand to see times and dates to ascertain if Jr can legally be granted citizenship.

If he did that (and his citizenship was revoked) he could no longer be president.

Interesting conundrum.

[Walter]

Nov 1, 2018 8:12:20 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 1, 2018 7:42:49 GMT -5 Walter said:

Not quite true. The bastard child conceived via adultery was to an American mother, Marla Maples.
But the point is made, whether true or not.
Conceivably, if the 14th was repealed, a new law would take its place. That new law could send Don Jr to The Czech Republic as the spawn of a woman without a green card (assuming that was her legal status at the time. Her exact date of legalization is in dispute).
The notion is, of course, ridiculous, as is the entire dumbass idea, but hey, if Trump wants to go there, let's do.
Let us demand to see times and dates to ascertain if Jr can legally be granted citizenship.

If he did that (and his citizenship was revoked) he could no longer be president.

Interesting conundrum.

Perhaps we could carve out an exception for white guys.
In that regard, note Mutt's specific exemption of Muslims from the opportunity to be citizens in his hypothetical. That mirrors the issue 120 years ago and is the best argument for why Trump's idea is a bad one.

[AlaCowboy]

Nov 1, 2018 8:12:20 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 1, 2018 7:42:49 GMT -5 Walter said:

Not quite true. The bastard child conceived via adultery was to an American mother, Marla Maples.
But the point is made, whether true or not.
Conceivably, if the 14th was repealed, a new law would take its place. That new law could send Don Jr to The Czech Republic as the spawn of a woman without a green card (assuming that was her legal status at the time. Her exact date of legalization is in dispute).
The notion is, of course, ridiculous, as is the entire dumbass idea, but hey, if Trump wants to go there, let's do.
Let us demand to see times and dates to ascertain if Jr can legally be granted citizenship.

If he did that (and his citizenship was revoked) he could no longer be president.

Interesting conundrum.

Don Jr. is president? Is it 2032 already?