HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

Into the Night said:
Which is being converted into a different statement than what Trump actually said. Fake news.

Nope.

No, he didn't.

I don't waste much of my time with the same old propaganda.

He didn't. You seem to have taken everything I said and myopically changed it to 'birthright citizenship'.
Click to expand...

How was the video "converted" into something different? It was Trump's own words in an interview and is the same shown on multiple news sources.

You didn't say JFK created birthright citizenship through executive order? I guess I misunderstood you. Maybe you can explain what you meant by this statement:

Flash: "But their children born in the U. S. are still citizens. There are millions to prove it whether their parent(s) were here legally or illegally.

Into the Night: "No, they aren't. That was a policy implemented by executive order from Pres. Kennedy, in violation of the Constitution.
Trump is simply reversing this order, so as to be in conformance with the Constitution."

How did I interpret this statement myopically?
 
Flash said:
How was the video "converted" into something different?
Click to expand...
By editing and reinterpretation.
Flash said:
It was Trump's own words in an interview and is the same shown on multiple news sources.
Click to expand...
Edited.
Flash said:
You didn't say JFK created birthright citizenship through executive order? I guess I misunderstood you. Maybe you can explain what you meant by this statement:
Flash: "But their children born in the U. S. are still citizens. There are millions to prove it whether their parent(s) were here legally or illegally.

Into the Night: "No, they aren't. That was a policy implemented by executive order from Pres. Kennedy, in violation of the Constitution.
Trump is simply reversing this order, so as to be in conformance with the Constitution."

How did I interpret this statement myopically?
Click to expand...
That is discussing birthright citizenship of a specific group of people. Not of all birthright citizenship.
 
sear said:
Oh?
When did this trade war start?
Click to expand...
Back during the Clinton administration.
sear said:
Oh?
You hope.
But Trump has made many grand promises, but made good on few if any.
Click to expand...
Actually quite a lot. You need to stop reading the fake news. They aren't reporting it.

He has cut income and other taxes, as promised.
He has reduced a lot of regulations, as promised.
He has improved the economy, as promised.
He has neutered Obamacare, as promised.
He has renegotiated the NAT agreement, as promised.
He is taking the trade war back to China, which started it, as promised.
He has dealt with the North Korea threat, as promised.
He is securing the Mexico border, as promised.
He is currently working on getting funding to build the wall, as promised.

All of these was not for his own gain, but for the nation's gain. His core philosophy is patriotism and capitalism.
 
Q:
When did this trade war start?

"Back during the Clinton administration." IN #1344
Click to expand...
If you wish to genuflect to President Clinton that's up to you.
But omnipotent though you may perceive Clinton to be, President Clinton didn't actually coin terms such as "tariff".
That doesn't mean trade was both free & fair when Clinton left office. But there were obstacles at home & abroad before Clinton, during Clinton, and after Clinton.
Clinton's contribution was NAFTA. But how could Clinton have done that without Speaker Gingrich's help?
Trump has made many grand promises, but made good on few if any.

"Actually quite a lot. You need to stop reading the fake news. They aren't reporting it." IN
Click to expand...
You're not thinking logically. There's an infinitude of things Trump doesn't do.
The presidential news that reaches the tower is usually about what Trump or his administration has done.
"He has cut income and other taxes, as promised." IN
Click to expand...
That is at best a half-truth.
Trump cut taxes on the $rich, which has ballooned our deficits. Fiscal conservatives are vehemently opposed to that *.
"He has reduced a lot of regulations, as promised." IN
Click to expand...
You're welcome to quote an authoritative & up-to-date source on that. But I doubt he's reduced regs. by 0.01% So by what definition of "a lot" do you make this claim?
"He has improved the economy, as promised." IN
Click to expand...
The economy was quite good, and vastly improved when President Obama left office.
The 8 year trajectory Obama set for the U.S. economy sustained into the Trump administration, though now Trump's trade war is reportedly destabilizing markets around the world.
"He has neutered Obamacare, as promised." IN
Click to expand...
That's a lie.
This is what Trump promised:

"You're going to have such great healthcare at a tiny fraction of the cost." candidate Trump 16/10/25 from campaign podium

"We're not gunna have like a 2 day period. And we're not gunna have a 2 year period, where there's nothing. It will be repealed and replaced." President Elect Trump CBS News 16/11/13

"It'll be repeal and replace. It will be essentially simultaneously. It will be various segments you understand but it will most likely be on the same day or the same week but probably the same day. Could be the same hour."
President Elect Trump 17/01/11 @NYC News Conference: source - FNS 17/07/02

"If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now (Trump/McConnell-care), they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!" U.S. President Trump 17/06/30 03:37 tweet

It's not clear to me why you deny the contributions of Speaker Ryan, and Majority Leader McConnell. There's more to government than the white house you know.
"He has dealt with the North Korea threat, as promised." IN
Click to expand...
Trump's dealing with NK/KJU is wisely recognized as a monumental diplomatic blunder. And it's not a solved problem merely because Trump declares it so.
“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” President Trump 2018, after his poorly prepared summit w/ NK/KJU

* "What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" [GWB] administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003
 
Flash said:
No, I told you I do not know any Article V cases. I was only discussing the meaning of shall.

What make you think "shall" would be interpreted differently in Article V from other provisions in the Constitution or federal or state law?
Click to expand...

Then your argument is only speculation. Why do you continue trying to express is as fact?
 
Into the Night said:
By editing and reinterpretation.

Edited.

That is discussing birthright citizenship of a specific group of people. Not of all birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...

Which group of people did the JFK executive order apply to? I cannot find any reference to that EO, either. Can you provide a link?

The video was neither "reinterpreted" or edited. This was on live TV. It is exactly as it appeared at the time and as stated in the presidential news conference.
 
CFM said:
Then your argument is only speculation. Why do you continue trying to express is as fact?
Click to expand...

It is not speculation that the courts have sometimes interpreted "shall" as "may" in constitutional provisions. None of those interpretations exempted Article V.

Your argument is also just speculation that the interpretation does not apply to Article V.
 
Last edited:
CFM said:
Then your argument is only speculation. Why do you continue trying to express is as fact?
Click to expand...

The banjo is a four-, five-, or six-stringed instrument with a thin membrane stretched over a frame or cavity as a resonator, called the head, which is typically circular. The membrane is typically made of plastic, although animal skin is still occasionally used. Early forms of the instrument were fashioned by Africans in the United States, adapted from African instruments of similar design.[1][2] The banjo is frequently associated with folk, Irish traditional, and country music. Historically, the banjo occupied a central place in African-American traditional music and the folk culture of rural whites before entering the mainstream via the minstrel shows of the 19th century.[3][4][5][6] The banjo, along with the fiddle, is a mainstay of American old-time music. It is also very frequently used in traditional ("trad") jazz.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjo

Your argument that the banjo was invented by whites is fiction. Why do you continue trying to express is as fact?
 
Flash said:
It is not speculation that the courts have sometimes interpreted "shall" as "may" in constitutional provisions. None of those interpretations exempted Article V.

Your argument is also just speculation that the interpretation does not apply to Article V.
Click to expand...

It's speculation on what you say would happen since there have been no Article V cases.

You lost. Go cry somewhere, snowflake.
 
CFM said:
It's speculation on what you say would happen since there have been no Article V cases.

You lost. Go cry somewhere, snowflake.
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth. I never speculated anything in particular would happen. I only pointed out that we do not know if Congress would be required to call a constitutional convention at the request of 2/3 of the states since "shall" did not require them to follow the "full faith-and-credit" or "extradition" provisions of Article IV.

It might be considered a "political question" as when a state ratifies a constitutional amendment and then rescinds that ratification--it is up to Congress to determine whether they accept that rescission.
 
Flash said:
You are putting words in my mouth. I never speculated anything in particular would happen. I only pointed out that we do not know if Congress would be required to call a constitutional convention at the request of 2/3 of the states since "shall" did not require them to follow the "full faith-and-credit" or "extradition" provisions of Article IV.

It might be considered a "political question" as when a state ratifies a constitutional amendment and then rescinds that ratification--it is up to Congress to determine whether they accept that rescission.
Click to expand...

You're speculating now, troll.
 
The text of the 14th Amendment reads: “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.”

Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Click to expand...

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. This was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

All the evidence shows that liberals simply invented this phony right out of thin air and forced it into effect without any basis whatsoever, in open defiance of what was intended and authorized.
 
CFM said:
Actually, you've gone beyond speculating. You making claims that you admit you can't prove.
Click to expand...

You made the same claims you cannot prove--that Article V makes it mandatory for Congress to call a constitutional convention if requested by 2/3 of the states. Since it has never happened and there have been no cases, you have no evidence supporting your case.

I at least pointed to cases where the courts ruled "shall" means "may"---so I was merely reciting facts and not making any claims about what Congress could or would not do.
 
Flash said:
Which group of people did the JFK executive order apply to? I cannot find any reference to that EO, either. Can you provide a link?

The video was neither "reinterpreted" or edited. This was on live TV. It is exactly as it appeared at the time and as stated in the presidential news conference.
Click to expand...

Try to follow the conversation next time. We've already been through this.
 
Flash said:
You made the same claims you cannot prove--that Article V makes it mandatory for Congress to call a constitutional convention if requested by 2/3 of the states. Since it has never happened and there have been no cases, you have no evidence supporting your case.

I at least pointed to cases where the courts ruled "shall" means "may"---so I was merely reciting facts and not making any claims about what Congress could or would not do.
Click to expand...

Congress is required to call a constitutional convention when requested by 2/3 of the State legislatures. It's really pretty simple to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top