cccjwh Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Most likely Cheetos Jesus is just lying about trying it. But it is possible that he is this stupid. President Donald Trump said in an interview that he plans to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for the children of non-American citizens who are born on U.S. soil, a move that would likely be challenged immediately in the courts over its constitutionality. "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump told "Axios on HBO" in an interview set to air Sunday, just two days before the midterm election. "You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order." "The 14th Amendment is explicit on this question: person born in the U.S. are citizens of the US and of the states in which they reside," said Sarah E. Turberville, director of The Constitution Project with the Project on Government Oversight. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/1816666002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Glad to see Trump challenging this. It will go to the courts who will make the final decision which Is what this is all about anyway. His executive order will immediately get challenged by a federal judge and then the court system will decide the constitutionality: "Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said. Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession. The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status." The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Outstanding Mr. President. No way an illegal who gives birth should have the child be declared a citizen. Or someone on vacation from another country has their child be declared a U.S. Citizen. MAGA.☕ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Good to see the left-wing lunatics are now becoming rock ribbed constitutional purists. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted October 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 23 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: Good to see the left-wing lunatics are now becoming rock ribbed constitutional purists. WSS Not surprise right wing nut jobs really don't care about what the constitution says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 19 minutes ago, cccjwh said: Not surprise right wing nut jobs really don't care about what the constitution says. That's right, especially when it comes to Anchor babies. And due process for me. But that's another conversation. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted October 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: That's right, especially when it comes to Anchor babies. And due process for me. But that's another conversation. WSS Well it's good you can admit being a hypocrite. That is the first step to recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, cccjwh said: Well it's good you can admit being a hypocrite. That is the first step to recovery. Sorry, libs wrote the book on hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 If the proper processes are followed, the Constitution can be changed. What I've always said. It's made to be a living document. Now, all of the usual suspects on here "challenged" me on that belief. I was told it was a perfect document. That if you want to change it then you're just tearing the Constitution apart. You all were very clear on that. So... Who exactly is the hypocrite? Do you all think it is ok to change the Constitution or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: If the proper processes are followed, the Constitution can be changed. What I've always said. It's made to be a living document. Now, all of the usual suspects on here "challenged" me on that belief. I was told it was a perfect document. That if you want to change it then you're just tearing the Constitution apart. You all were very clear on that. So... Who exactly is the hypocrite? Do you all think it is ok to change the Constitution or not? Who in particular are you talking to? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Everyone that was on team "we can't ever change the Constitution" when they didn't want it changed. I don't remember if you shared an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Westside Steve said: And due process for me. WSS I would be interested in hearing that one. Edit: it's all a distraction anyway. The market was taking a beating last i checked so we have to avert the attention of possible voters. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted October 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 57 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said: Sorry, libs wrote the book on hypocrisy. Pointing out other's hypocrisy does not justify your own. No matter how much you want it to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 18 minutes ago, tiamat63 said: I would be interested in hearing that one. Edit: it's all a distraction anyway. The market was taking a beating last i checked so we have to avert the attention of possible voters. Nothing more. I'm sure we've touched on that before. I think you guys know my opinion that the constitution has been shredded and it is nearly meeting list by now anyway. But as for due process... I've said it before if a cop finds incriminating evidence of a crime we can all agree that we don't like and arrest the guy I don't want it to be thrown out because of not having time for a warrant order read the guy his rights clearly and in whatever language he prefers. Now before you guys go down the rabbit hole of planting evidence etc etc no I don't want that. But I will always err on the side of Public Safety than loopholes in the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 This has nothing to do with changing the constitution. What this is all about is the Supreme Court making a clarification: The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: Everyone that was on team "we can't ever change the Constitution" when they didn't want it changed. I don't remember if you shared an opinion My argument has always been to follow the constitution as written. Of course it can be changed by the amendment process: Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 let me be cleae tgat im kind of onboard wirh getting rid anchor babies, that being said.....theres alot of things in the constitution that dont make sense anymore in our modern world. So get ur depends ready ole boys xause this executive order thing will be used again and in ways tgat are gonna make u explode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 its always been a theory of mine that our govt in gen wants to take guns away from us, not just liberals. But one party has to.act at least like they're tryibg to.stop that. Well, Trump is testing this now. We're seeing the groundwork being laid and who better to do it? Trump is so sacrosanct to the right now that nobody would suspect this is the ulterior motive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said: let me be cleae tgat im kind of onboard wirh getting rid anchor babies, that being said.....theres alot of things in the constitution that dont make sense anymore in our modern world. So get ur depends ready ole boys xause this executive order thing will be used again and in ways tgat are gonna make u explode Look at what happened with Trump and the so called travel ban executive order. It was immediately challenged by a federal judge and the Supreme Court eventually ruled it was constitutional. So any executive order can be challenged in the courts as to being constitutional. Also any executive order can be done away by the next president if they so choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Trump always wins libscum. MAGA☕ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said: This has nothing to do with changing the constitution. What this is all about is the Supreme Court making a clarification: The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status." The INTENT of the 14th Amendment - was to undo the wrong of slavery - their INTENT was to make sure all black citizens' children were also born American Citizens. It has nothing to do with somebody from China coming here for just a week, and having their child be an American citizen. Any CITIZEN who has a child here, ...the child is automatically an American citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 5 hours ago, cccjwh said: Not surprise right wing nut jobs really don't care about what the constitution says. apparently, you haven't read the 14th Amendment or anything else. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment "within the jurisdiction" is the key. a person is within the jurisdiction of the country they came from when they come here. Slaves, having been BROUGHT HERE (by blacks, btw) - lived and worked here for years, and it is deemed by this amendment - that they ARE citizens, and so are their children. Liberals love to redefine words to suit their emotions, and they love to cherry pick words in any elaborate text so they can justify their emotions again. To not understand the original intent and comprehensive meaning of the original wordsl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: The INTENT of the 14th Amendment - was to undo the wrong of slavery - their INTENT was to make sure all black citizens' children were also born American Citizens. It has nothing to do with somebody from China coming here for just a week, and having their child be an American citizen. Any CITIZEN who has a child here, ...the child is automatically an American citizen. Not disagreeing Cal but this needs to go back to the Supreme Court for a clarification because right now we are having anchor babies born and becoming citizens soley because they were born on U.S. soil regardless of whether parents are citizens or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 The INTENT of the 2nd Amendment was to arm a regulated militia with muskets. I can do that too ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: Not disagreeing Cal but this needs to go back to the Supreme Court for a clarification because right now we are having anchor babies born and becoming citizens soley because they were born on U.S. soil regardless of whether parents are citizens or not. I agree - it's a huge problem - but when the Supreme Court clarifies, the left will just deliberately misinterpret it another way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: The INTENT of the 2nd Amendment was to arm a regulated militia with muskets. I can do that too ... nah - you just misinterpreted to suit your emotions. https://medium.com/@justin_lane/the-2nd-amendment-was-designed-for-muskets-187c3cf0453e The 2nd amendment was designed for Muskets? Image credit Wikipedia One common argument in the American gun debate, which usually surfaces after a mass shooting is covered by the media, is that the 2nd amendment is outdated because the framers of the constitution couldn’t have conceived of the destruction of firearms greater than a musket. There are two reasons that this argument doesn’t hold much water. First, the 2nd amendment does not grant us the right to bear muskets, it grants us the right to bear arms. It was not to grant us the ability to own a certain item, it was put in the Bill of Rights to ensure that “we the people” had a mechanism for overthrowing a government that has overstepped its bounds, should the time ever come. So, the technology that is protected by the 2nd amendment is rather secondary given this rather dark fact of the American system. However, the argument can be taken at face value. Maybe the framers of the Constitution would have considered it otherwise if they knew of anything more destructive than a muzzle loaded rifle. Image credit Wikipedia Well, sadly, history tells us that they knew full well of other firearms. One thing that is not well known apparently is that cannons were owned by private citizens in the US — and they still are. These weapons are often ceremonial in use, but then, so are many firearms. The fact is though, that these items can bring about intense amounts of destruction and yet, were never regulated by the framers. Secondly, rifles in the 1700s and 1800s were very high caliber. In fact, the Brown Bess, was the standard for the British Empire in 1722 (well before the drafting of the Constitution-10 years before Washington was born in fact — and was in use until the 1830s. This gun, and its many variants were .75 caliber rifles. The gun was well known by the Founding fathers as the American Revolutionaries used the gun in the Revolution. Today, anything above .50 is banned in the US. So, during the writing of the constitution, the framers knew of guns firing much larger projectiles (greater than you can buy today), including cannons. The argument also suggests that the framers of the constitution could not have conceived of semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms that have the ability to fire rapidly. While this seems to many to be a logical thought and that the debate ends there, this also isn’t the case. The first machine gun was invented by James Puckle, who was born in 1667 and died in 1724. Yes, the inventor of the machine gun died more than half a century before the ratification of the 2nd amendment. This gun held multiple rounds (between 6 and 11). In one demonstration, during a driving rain storm apparently the gun fired 63 shots in seven minutes. Far faster than the muskets that people say the Founding fathers envisioned. Belton’s letter to Congress. Image credit Wikipedia There is also the Belton Flintlock. This was another rapid fire rifle that could apparently fire 16–20 rounds in as fast as 5 seconds. This weapon was definitely known by the lawmakers of the time because the inventor wrote a letter explaining its capabilities to the Congress in April of 1777. Additionally, there is also the Girandoni rifle. This rifle was used by the Austrian army from 1780 (over 10 years before the ratification of the 2nd amendment). It had a high rate of fire and could fire 20 or more .46 caliber rounds (a high-capacity rifle by contemporary debate standards). The gun could fire all of the rounds without needing to be manipulated by the user. This gun was known to Americans during the period of the founding fathers as Lewis and Clark’s expedition used this rifle in the early 1800s. Image credit Wikipedia Now, the tried and true gun control advocate may argue that guns are weapons of war and that it is the responsibility of a government, not a private citizen, to own and operate them. While this neglects a large amount of judicial interpretation of the 2nd amendment to date, it also neglects a serious amount of American naval history. In the constitution, Article 1, section 8 addresses what is called “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”. These are letters that authorize private citizens to capture enemy ships during times of war. During the Revolution, the US relied heavily on “privateers”, or privately-owned boats captained by private citizens, by most counts, there were 10x more Privateer vessels than there were ships in the Continental Navy. As such, the framers were quite aware of the use of the right to bear arms, even as a weapon of war. But, here it is interesting to note that it is most likely that no privateers have been used since the 19th century. Privateer Schooner. Image credit Wikipedia So these examples all force us to ask the question: if the founding fathers did not intend for the citizens to arm themselves with anything greater than a musket, why didn’t they revise the constitution to reflect this, or why didn’t any of them write or leave any trace that suck weapons in the hands of civilians were problematic or against their intent in writing the 2nd amendment? Quite simply, they didn’t find these weapons to be problematic. They wrote the 2nd amendment as a measure to ensure that the people have a way of protecting themselves against tyranny. The right to bear arms applies whether we have muskets or AR-15s just as much as the right to free speech applies whether we have a printing press or a fiber-optic internet connection. This again, confronts us with the hard truth of the 2nd amendment in its full context. It was not there to put limits on the citizenry, it is a right of the people of the United States. It is the right that ensures all other rights inherently. Does this all mean that there aren’t some regulations that the US should consider to stop mass shootings and accidental gun deaths in the US today? Not at all. All this means is that we need to carefully spell out why it is we believe that the US should implement a regulation and not repeat historically false arguments when trying to interpret the intentions of the Founding fathers. Apparently, some accounts describe a .51 caliber ball. Guns Politics Second Amendment Technology History Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 4 hours ago, cccjwh said: Pointing out other's hypocrisy does not justify your own. No matter how much you want it to.. Where did I say the Republicans are free from hypocrisy? The Dems just do it better...much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: I agree - it's a huge problem - but when the Supreme Court clarifies, the left will just deliberately misinterpret it another way. It might be a good thing this time with the case going to a conservative leaning Supreme Court. As soon as Trump would issue an executive order on anchor babies the liberals will immediately go to one of their activist federal judges to stop it with an injunction. Trump will appeal and it will probably end up going to the Supremes where they can make a definitive ruling once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 2 hours ago, MLD Woody said: The INTENT of the 2nd Amendment was to arm a regulated militia with muskets. I can do that too ... right on the money, this is exactly whats coming. anyway, paul ryan shot down the executive order idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 9 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said: right on the money, this is exactly whats coming. anyway, paul ryan shot down the executive order idea No, it's all good. Cal posted an article that says "well the amendment says arms not muskets. so that argument doesn't count".... .... what How Shmucking dense is that author? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.