HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

Just gotta love seeing how low Trump's supporters will go after they have been all tuned up to hate, hate, hate, minorities. What are America's most cherished ideals anyway, when it's a political fight to the end? I mean fuk, anything goes now that Trump is steering America's bus!

What about those water drinking fountains for whites only? Are they still in cold storage waiting for the good old days to return to the south? Git out those bed sheets and pointy hats good ol boys. Dust em off and shake out the moths, America's got some serious work to do with some uppity nigras!

And it's just startin to git int-restun!
 
rjhenn said:
Hopefully, they will consider the legal precedent set by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case, where all that was necessary was for the parents to have established a permanent residence and be doing business in the U.S., and to not be in the employ of any foreign power. That would exclude the children of tourists and many, though not all, illegals.
Click to expand...

hopefully kavabro and tom-tom will remember they got accused as gang rapists by the left.
 
Flash said:
Madison's plan had 20 amendments. The House passed 17 of these and the Senate proposed 12. 10 of these were ratified in 1791. The amendment you are referring to as #11 (was originally the 2nd) and was ratified by 3/4 of the states in 1992. It cannot be both 11 or 12 and 27 at the same time because by the time it was ratified we already had 26 other amendments and they weren't going to change the numbers. It is the same amendment proposed in 1791 but was obsolete by the time it was ratified because Congress had already passed a law giving them automatic pay raises based on the CPI (like Social Security).

Regarding the alternative method of amending, Congress does not have to rubber stamp a proposed call for a convention, so, it is still involved in the process. And, if that convention is called, the state does not necessarily ratify that amendment. The alternative is to have ratifying conventions and 3/4 of those must ratify.

The ratifying conventions basically bypass the state legislatures and was used to ratify the 21st Amendment because it was feared the southern state legislatures would not vote to repeal prohibition and they bypassed the legislatures by using ratifying conventions.

"Madison started off with 20 amendments with a separate preamble to the Bill of Rights.

The House of Representatives debated and changed Madison’s proposal and approved a version with 17 amendments. Then, the proposed Bill of Rights went to the Senate, where it underwent more extensive revisions, and emerged as a document with 12 amendments. Congress then approved the “final” Bill of Rights, as a joint resolution, on September 25, 1789.

But the 12 amendments didn’t all make it through the state ratification process. And in fact, the original First and Second Amendments fell short of approval by enough states to make it into the Constitution.

The original First Amendment stated a formula for determining the size of the House of Representatives based on the population of the United States in 1789. That amendment could still be revived, but it wouldn’t be practical in the year 2013. The original Second Amendment was about determining when Congress can change its pay. It took a very long time, but the original Second Amendment became the 27th Amendment when it was ratified in 1992." [National Constitution Center]

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...original-12-amendments-in-the-bill-of-rights/
Click to expand...

The amendment I am referring to is the 27th. Since it was not ratified by the State, it was originally PROPOSAL #2.

Regarding the alternative method of proposal, Congress is required to call the convention if 2/3 of the State legislatures apply

It reads, " . . or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments . . "

Do you know what the key word is in that portion of Article V indicating Congress is a rubber stamp with this method?

The original 1st and 2nd amendments are the ones dealing with free speech, press, exercise of religion, so on and the right to bear arms. What you keep referring to as amendment were nothing more than PROPOSED amendments. Nothing becomes an amendment until 3/4 of the States ratify it. Why is that so hard to understand? Based on your logic, all someone has to do is apply for a job and they are an employee despite those doing the hiring not choosing them.
 
CFM said:
Regarding the alternative method of proposal, Congress is required to call the convention if 2/3 of the State legislatures apply

It reads, " . . or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments . . "

Do you know what the key word is in that portion of Article V indicating Congress is a rubber stamp with this method?
Click to expand...

It does not say "required" it says "shall." That might sound like a requirement to us but not based on previous Supreme Court cases that say
it is not a requirement.

Two examples are from Article IV that says states "shall" grant full faith and credit to other states and that governors "shall" extradite fugitives. But there have been cases in which these have not been honored and they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
 
Flash said:
It does not say "required" it says "shall." That might sound like a requirement to us but not based on previous Supreme Court cases that say
it is not a requirement.

Two examples are from Article IV that says states "shall" grant full faith and credit to other states and that governors "shall" extradite fugitives. But there have been cases in which these have not been honored and they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

By definition, in the sense of laws, it means mandatory. A synonym of mandatory is required. Provide the name of a case where 2/3 of the states had requested a Constitutional convention and the Court said no. An Article IV case isn't the same thing although you didn't name a case from it either only claimed it.
 
My Wife Drinks CFM's Cum said:
Those "illegals" have always and only been here at the behest of and upon the think tank legislative efforts of your Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class cornpone, don't get it twisted.
Click to expand...

They're here to get the handouts and so the little shits they birth can have citizenship. Don't get it twisted.

Doesn't really matter. You want them here so you deserve it if one of them does such a thing.
 
CFM said:
By definition, in the sense of laws, it means mandatory. A synonym of mandatory is required. Provide the name of a case where 2/3 of the states had requested a Constitutional convention and the Court said no. An Article IV case isn't the same thing although you didn't name a case from it either only claimed it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a case involving a requested constitutional convention and I doubt Congress would refuse to call one unless they strongly opposed the purpose for which the convention was being requested. But my point was that the term "shall" does not mean required based on Supreme Court decisions. I don't understand why you think "shall" would differ based on whether it is the 4th or 5th article.

One of the full faith and credit cases dealt with Reno's quickie divorces. A couple married to other people went to Reno and got divorced. They returned to their home state and married each other and were charged with bigamy because their state did not recognize the Nevada divorce.
One of the extradition cases involves country singer Ferlin Husky. I'm sure you can easily find the names of these cases if interested.
 
Flash said:
I don't think there is a case involving a requested constitutional convention and I doubt Congress would refuse to call one unless they strongly opposed the purpose for which the convention was being requested. But my point was that the term "shall" does not mean required based on Supreme Court decisions. I don't understand why you think "shall" would differ based on whether it is the 4th or 5th article.

One of the full faith and credit cases dealt with Reno's quickie divorces. A couple married to other people went to Reno and got divorced. They returned to their home state and married each other and were charged with bigamy because their state did not recognize the Nevada divorce.
One of the extradition cases involves country singer Ferlin Husky. I'm sure you can easily find the names of these cases if interested.
Click to expand...

The term shall may not have meant something in the Article IV cases but that doesn't equate to it meaning required in an Article V case. Perhaps the Court looked at the Article IV cases that way because divorce involves something that they deemed is a State issued based on the 10th amendment in comparison to the level of government with authority based on Article I, Section 8. To say that the same thing would apply in a issue that is clearly a federal issue would be determined the same is a pure guess.
 
CFM said:
The term shall may not have meant something in the Article IV cases but that doesn't equate to it meaning required in an Article V case. Perhaps the Court looked at the Article IV cases that way because divorce involves something that they deemed is a State issued based on the 10th amendment in comparison to the level of government with authority based on Article I, Section 8. To say that the same thing would apply in a issue that is clearly a federal issue would be determined the same is a pure guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you never know what the Supreme Court is going to do. I think there was a later case involving full faith and credit or extradition that the Court said the states were bound to follow.
 
Flash said:
Yeah, you never know what the Supreme Court is going to do. I think there was a later case involving full faith and credit or extradition that the Court said the states were bound to follow.
Click to expand...

You seem to think you know.

When you can provide a case related to Article V, let me know. Until then, shall means required no matter how much you refuse to believe it.
 
CFM said:
You seem to think you know.

When you can provide a case related to Article V, let me know. Until then, shall means required no matter how much you refuse to believe it.
Click to expand...

I never said there was a case involving Article V. I only referred to Article IV cases involving full faith-and-credit and extradition and the term "shall." I don't pretend to believe anything--I am just citing constitutional law.
 
CFM is a fucking idiot:

“We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
 
Looks like it was just an election ploy, like the caravan... no executive order will be issued.

You fools got duped another time, when will you learn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top