Page 405 of 1005 FirstFirst ... 305355395403404405406407415455505905 ... LastLast
Results 4,041 to 4,050 of 10044

Thread: Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

  1. #4041
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    4,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortybox View Post
    Yes he can if the executive order is to restore the original intent of the 14th amendment. Stop being so stupid.
    Jesus Christ, at least Rocktar understands how the Constitution works. An executive order can't change the Constitution, full stop.

    And the original intent of the 14th amendment has been clear from the beginning and confirmed multiple times in the courts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick McGoohan
    I am not a number, I am a free man!

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigWorm View Post
    Jesus Christ, at least Rocktar understands how the Constitution works. An executive order can't change the Constitution, full stop.

    And the original intent of the 14th amendment has been clear from the beginning and confirmed multiple times in the courts.
    Uh yeah. There's a reason why the birthright citizenship clause is in the 14th Amendment. Because in Dredd Scott, the Court ruled that people of color were NOT US citizens and could never be.

    That language was 100% intentional- to ensure citizenship for millions of people who were born in this country.

    But this is exactly what Trump is counting on. There's not going to be an Executive Order. And the Courts aren't going to touch birthright citizenship because it's not even a question of interpretation- it's explicitly written into our Constitution.

    He's doing it because he knows morons like Fortybox are going to get all riled up and excited and will want to go out and vote to help end birthright citizenship- which no one can do without a Constitutional amendment.

  3. #4043
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigWorm View Post
    Jesus Christ, at least Rocktar understands how the Constitution works. An executive order can't change the Constitution, full stop.

    And the original intent of the 14th amendment has been clear from the beginning and confirmed multiple times in the courts.
    Itís not a change to the constitution if the executive order holds up the original intent. Youíre the one advocating to expand the 14th beyond the meaning - which isnít surprising because the left wants to ascribe new meanings outside of the original intentions of why the amendment(s) were put in the first place.

  4. #4044
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    Uh yeah. There's a reason why the birthright citizenship clause is in the 14th Amendment. Because in Dredd Scott, the Court ruled that people of color were NOT US citizens and could never be.

    That language was 100% intentional- to ensure citizenship for millions of people who were born in this country.

    But this is exactly what Trump is counting on. There's not going to be an Executive Order. And the Courts aren't going to touch birthright citizenship because it's not even a question of interpretation- it's explicitly written into our Constitution.

    He's doing it because he knows morons like Fortybox are going to get all riled up and excited and will want to go out and vote to help end birthright citizenship- which no one can do without a Constitutional amendment.
    Intent is important and you just want to manipulate the amendment to account for additional details not even thought of when the amendment was drafted. Illegal aliens pooping out babies who then get citizenship wasn’t the intent.

    I don’t expect the SC to side with Trump on this but he is absolutely right.

  5. #4045
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,093
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    He is saying the Amendment covers only those who are legally here, such as the former slaves and all African Americans born here from them. That is what the actual amendment was created for. Not to allow for anchor babies. He is doing this purely to get it into the courts, which it will, and that will define what the law states.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  6. #4046
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    He is saying the Amendment covers only those who are legally here, such as the former slaves and all African Americans born here from them. That is what the actual amendment was created for. Not to allow for anchor babies. He is doing this purely to get it into the courts, which it will, and that will define what the law states.
    Bingo - we have a winner!

    The left doesn’t view it that way though. The constitution is something to be manipulated and changed to meet the political need at the time.

  7. #4047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    But this is exactly what Trump is counting on. There's not going to be an Executive Order. And the Courts aren't going to touch birthright citizenship because it's not even a question of interpretation- it's explicitly written into our Constitution.
    Gun ownership isn't a question of interpretation either yet the courts touch that one all the time.

    Also the 14th amendment is open for interpretation. The important part of the 14th amendment is:

    "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."

    What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Could it mean if the parents are citizens or residents?

    Are you telling me that if someday the US were invaded and occupied, and the invading army brings their family or gets a foreigner pregnant and has a child on US soil, then the US wins the war and kicks out all of the invaders, the children of these invaders are US citizens and can stay and can eventually sponsor their previously invading parents to come live in the US to be American citizens? You really think this is what they had in mind when they wrote the 14th amendment? Or could it be that since they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US that their children aren't automatically US citizens?

  8. #4048
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,093
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    Gun ownership isn't a question of interpretation either yet the courts touch that one all the time.

    Also the 14th amendment is open for interpretation. The important part of the 14th amendment is:

    "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."

    What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Could it mean if the parents are citizens or residents?

    Are you telling me that if someday the US were invaded and occupied, and the invading army brings their family or gets a foreigner pregnant and has a child on US soil, then the US wins the war and kicks out all of the invaders, the children of these invaders are US citizens and can stay and can eventually sponsor their previously invading parents to come live in the US to be American citizens? You really think this is what they had in mind when they wrote the 14th amendment? Or could it be that since they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US that their children aren't automatically US citizens?
    Technically, if the US was invaded, the taken over territory wouldn't be US soil anymore. If it were occupied, our Constitution would be whatever the occupiers say it is.
    Last edited by Gelston; 10-31-2018 at 02:22 PM.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  9. #4049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    Technically, if the US was invaded, the taken over territory wouldn't be US soil anymore.
    Okay fine just invaded and not occupied. Like they were really bad invaders.

  10. #4050
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    Technically, if the US was invaded, the taken over territory wouldn't be US soil anymore. If it were occupied, our Constitution would be whatever the occupiers say it is.
    Wrong. By that argument we wouldn’t have had a revolution.

    Our constitution lays out the God given rights we have. No worldly authority can take that away.
    Last edited by Fortybox; 10-31-2018 at 02:26 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •