BREAKING: Trump says he’s going to overturn the 14th Amendment with an executive order.

[Walt]

Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that is they do not abide by our laws, hence those offspring they produce are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

So if you disobey a law, you are no longer subject to it? So if I murder someone, I am no longer subject to the laws against murder, and cannot be convicted under them?

 

[Walt]

Are you sure you're talking about the right country?

America has never had a black president.

Another alt right conspiracy theory?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Naturalized would be immigrants, so they were thinking about immigrants.

Correct., "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That's the kicker for being born here to illegal immigrants.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

So if you disobey a law, you are no longer subject to it? So if I murder someone, I am no longer subject to the laws against murder, and cannot be convicted under them?

No, not simply disobeying a law, but disobeying immigration laws. You haven't gone through the immigration process.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

If illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction, we cannot legally deport them. Just saying, you cannot have them both subject to our laws and not subject to our laws at once.

Yes, we can legally deport them. They aren't citizens.

 

[Walt]

That shit was never intended for Anchor babies in an age of modern transportation.

So an American citizen cannot sponsor a relative for a Green Card until they are 21. It can take between 10 and 20 years to get that Green Card. Then five years to get citizenship. That could be 46 years to get an "anchoring" out of your "baby."

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

So an American citizen cannot sponsor a relative for a Green Card until they are 21. It can take between 10 and 20 years to get that Green Card. Then five years to get citizenship. That could be 46 years to get an "anchoring" out of your "baby."

Then follow the law and do it legally. Duh!!

 

[Walt]

No, not simply disobeying a law, but disobeying immigration laws. You haven't gone through the immigration process.

If they disobey immigration law, they are no longer subject to immigration law, and cannot be deported? That is an odd interpretation of the law.

You can disobey the law all you want, you are still subject to it.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

If they disobey immigration law, they are no longer subject to immigration law, and cannot be deported? That is an odd interpretation of the law.

You can disobey the law all you want, you are still subject to it.

I never said that. You did. Maybe it's time for your nap.

 

[Walt]

Yes, we can legally deport them. They aren't citizens.

According to you, they are not subject to the deportation laws.

Russians in Russia are not subject to our jurisdiction, so we cannot force Russia to deport people. People in America are subject to our jurisdiction, with a few exceptions about diplomacy, and Native American nations, so they are covered under the 14th Amendment, and deported.

 

[Walt]

Citizens of another country are subject to the jurisdiction of their country.

When they are in the USA, they are subject to our jurisdiction. When you are in a foreign country, you are subject to their jurisdiction. Read up on it if you ever plan to travel abroad.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

According to you, they are not subject to the deportation laws.

Russians in Russia are not subject to our jurisdiction, so we cannot force Russia to deport people. People in America are subject to our jurisdiction, with a few exceptions about diplomacy, and Native American nations, so they are covered under the 14th Amendment, and deported.

No, according to you.

 

[Nordberg]

Yes, we can legally deport them. They aren't citizens.

You have to prove that. That requires time money and courts.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

When they are in the USA, they are subject to our jurisdiction. When you are in a foreign country, you are subject to their jurisdiction. Read up on it if you ever plan to travel abroad.

We aren't talking about visiting a country. We're talking about being in America illegally.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

You have to prove that. That requires time money and courts.

It's done every day.

 

[Walt]

We aren't talking about visiting a country. We're talking about being in America illegally.

Both put you under the jurisdiction of American law.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Both put you under the jurisdiction of American law.

That isn't what the 14th Amendment is referring to. Do you understand the sole purpose of the 14th Amendment section 1?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The ruling can't stand because no court can determine anyone is guilty of insurrection. How many times do you have to be told...Only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist. The state of Colorado used the 14th Amendment and that's what the 14th Amendment says. They are wrong and so are you. Unbelievable.

ROFLMAO.
You keep saying that and it is still wrong.
Show me where in the USSC ruling in Trump v Anderson that the court said only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist.

Not only does the ruling say that states have that authority to declare someone an insurrectionist, they cite cases were the states actually did use the insurrection clause to prevent people from holding state offices after they committed insurrection. The only way for there to be due process is to have a court decide on the evidence so the courts can determine who has committed insurrection based on evidence presented to the court.

From Trump v Anderson as ruled on by USSC - (page 6)
We conclude
that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting
to hold state office. But States have no power under the
Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of-
fices, especially the Presidency.
“In our federal system, the National Government pos-
sesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain
the remainder.” Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844, 854
(2014). Among those retained powers is the power of a
State to “order the processes of its own governance.” Alden
v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 752 (1999). In particular, the
States enjoy sovereign “power to prescribe the qualifica-
tions of their own officers” and “the manner of their election
. . . free from external interference, except so far as plainly
provided by the Constitution of the United States.” Taylor
v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 570–571 (1900). Although the
Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it
plainly withdraws from the States this traditional author-
ity. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment,
States used this authority to disqualify state officers in ac-
cordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett,
63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State
ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869)
(state judge).

(page 9)
And it is an especially telling sign here, be-
cause as noted, States did disqualify persons from holding
state offices following ratification of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. That pattern of disqualification with respect to state,
but not federal offices provides “persuasive evidence of a
general understanding” that the States lacked enforcement
power with respect to the latter.

Nowhere in the ruling does it give Congress the exclusive power to decide if anyone is an insurrectionist. It only give Congress the exclusive power to deny them federal office.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That isn't what the 14th Amendment is referring to. Do you understand the sole purpose of the 14th Amendment section 1?

And your argument is nonsense since if applied to other amendments it would basically invalidate them.
The purpose of the 19th amendment was to give women the right to vote. If we follow your argument, men could be denied the right to vote without violating the 19th amendment.
The purpose of the 26th amendment was to give 18-20 year olds the right to vote. If we follow your argument citizens over the age of 21 could be denied the vote without violating that amendment.

No rational person would accept your argument for the 19th and 26th amendments and no rational person should accept your argument for the 14th. "all persons" means all persons. It does not mean "just black persons who were former slaves."

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

ROFLMAO.
You keep saying that and it is still wrong.
Show me where in the USSC ruling in Trump v Anderson that the court said only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist.

Not only does the ruling say that states have that authority to declare someone an insurrectionist, they cite cases were the states actually did use the insurrection clause to prevent people from holding state offices after they committed insurrection. The only way for there to be due process is to have a court decide on the evidence so the courts can determine who has committed insurrection based on evidence presented to the court.

From Trump v Anderson as ruled on by USSC - (page 6)
We conclude
that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting
to hold state office. But States have no power under the
Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of-
fices, especially the Presidency.
“In our federal system, the National Government pos-
sesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain
the remainder.” Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844, 854
(2014). Among those retained powers is the power of a
State to “order the processes of its own governance.” Alden
v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 752 (1999). In particular, the
States enjoy sovereign “power to prescribe the qualifica-
tions of their own officers” and “the manner of their election
. . . free from external interference, except so far as plainly
provided by the Constitution of the United States.” Taylor
v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 570–571 (1900). Although the
Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it
plainly withdraws from the States this traditional author-
ity. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment,
States used this authority to disqualify state officers in ac-
cordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett,
63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State
ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869)
(state judge).

(page 9)
And it is an especially telling sign here, be-
cause as noted, States did disqualify persons from holding
state offices following ratification of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. That pattern of disqualification with respect to state,
but not federal offices provides “persuasive evidence of a
general understanding” that the States lacked enforcement
power with respect to the latter.

Nowhere in the ruling does it give Congress the exclusive power to decide if anyone is an insurrectionist. It only give Congress the exclusive power to deny them federal office.

Here it is for the third or fourth time.

Supreme Court says only Congress can bar a candidate, like Trump, from the presidency for insurrection − 3 essential reads

Experts explain the context behind the Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on presidential ballots.

theconversation.com