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

Poor Richard Saunders said:
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."
Click to expand...
All persons born here AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. You keep omitting that key phrase. Keep spinning your wheels.
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
Correct., "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That's the kicker for being born here to illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...
Repeating a specious argument doesn't make it true. You can't defend your position on subject to the jurisdiction so you just keep repeating it ad nauseam.

According to court case decided in 1812 the only persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the US when here are foreign sovereign, foreign ministers and foreign troops allowed to pass through the country. There is no basis to say that persons here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction without making the amendment mean that persons from one state are not subject to the laws in another state when they visit that state. Once again, your position is nothing but nonsense.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Repeating a specious argument doesn't make it true. You can't defend your position on subject to the jurisdiction so you just keep repeating it ad nauseam.

According to court case decided in 1812 the only persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the US when here are foreign sovereign, foreign ministers and foreign troops allowed to pass through the country. There is no basis to say that persons here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction without making the amendment mean that persons from one state are not subject to the laws in another state when they visit that state. Once again, your position is nothing but nonsense.
Click to expand...
1812 doesn't matter since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
Here it is for the third or fourth time.
theconversation.com

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 theconversation.com
Click to expand...
That is NOT the actual ruling. That is someone's opinion that ignores what the opinion actually says.


The actual ruling can be found here since you seem to be unable to find it or read it even though you claimed you did read it.

At this point I can only assume you are a liar since you clearly haven't read the courts actual ruling.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
That is NOT the actual ruling. That is someone's opinion that ignores what the opinion actually says.


The actual ruling can be found here since you seem to be unable to find it or read it even though you claimed you did read it.

At this point I can only assume you are a liar since you clearly haven't read the courts actual ruling.
Click to expand...
I have read the Supreme Court decision. It said only congress can determine who is an insurrectionist. Why don't you publish the decision here and show us that you're correct. Go ahead.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
That is NOT the actual ruling. That is someone's opinion that ignores what the opinion actually says.


The actual ruling can be found here since you seem to be unable to find it or read it even though you claimed you did read it.

At this point I can only assume you are a liar since you clearly haven't read the courts actual ruling.
Click to expand...
Here's the decision. Show us.
www.pbs.org

Read the Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on the 2024 presidential ballot

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
That isn't what the 14th Amendment is referring to. Do you understand the sole purpose of the 14th Amendment section 1?
Click to expand...
You say it is only for former slaves... But former slaves would not have naturalized. They put naturalization in there, because they had immigrants in mind.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.
Trump was found in Colorado court to be an insurrectionist. That ruling stands. The Supreme Court didn't decide 9-0 against my argument. You don't seem to even know what your argument is. You certainly haven't read any of the court rulings or you wouldn't be making so many specious arguments about what is in them.
Click to expand...

Colorado engaged in sedition and insurrection by trying to thwart free and fair elections.

Why do you hate democracy?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Colorado engaged in sedition and insurrection by trying to thwart free and fair elections.

Why do you hate democracy?
Click to expand...
QED on fucking morons.

I support restricting mental hospital and retirement home patients from accessing the Internet. No doubt Sybil, Neil and other MAGAts will disagree.
 
Walt said:
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?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Those here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction to draft them for military service, to serve on juries, to hold public office, to be deputized, and hundreds of other examples.

Because they are under the moral jurisdiction of foreign nations.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Irrelevant.

Those here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction to draft them for military service, to serve on juries, to hold public office, to be deputized, and hundreds of other examples.

Because they are under the moral jurisdiction of foreign nations.
Click to expand...
Foreign nationals can be drafted into our military.

Foreign nationals in the USA are under the jurisdiction of the USA, with the exception of diplomats, and the historic exception of some Native Americans. That is established law.

The jurisdiction goes so far that it can decide whether they can serve on juries. Can minors serve on juries? Because they are under our jurisdiction, we can decide that.
 
Walt said:
Foreign nationals can be drafted into our military.
Click to expand...

No, they certainly cannot. In some circumstances they can volunteer to serve - but they cannot be drafted.

Walt said:
Foreign nationals in the USA are under the jurisdiction of the USA, with the exception of diplomats, and the historic exception of some Native Americans. That is established law.

The jurisdiction goes so far that it can decide whether they can serve on juries. Can minors serve on juries? Because they are under our jurisdiction, we can decide that.
Click to expand...

You're making shit up, desperately trying to backfill the talking points you are reciting from leftist hate sites.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
No, they certainly cannot. In some circumstances they can volunteer to serve - but they cannot be drafted.
Click to expand...
Almost all males living in the US whether citizens or immigrants must register for the draft, and all can be legally drafted.

The major exception is the opposite of being here illegally. If you can prove a non-immigrant visa, you can get out of the draft. Notice that it requires a provable visa.

With the people applying for asylum, as part of the asylum process they must register for the draft. If they are a male between the ages of 18 and 25, and fail to register for the draft, their asylum case fails immediately. There is no way to get the hoped for parole.
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
1812 doesn't matter since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Click to expand...
1812 very much matters because it shows what the definition of subject to the jurisdiction was known to be before the 14th was written. If they didn't want to use the 1812 definition then they would have defined the term. Since they didn't define the term, its definition from before the writing of the amendment would have been used.
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
I have read the Supreme Court decision. It said only congress can determine who is an insurrectionist. Why don't you publish the decision here and show us that you're correct. Go ahead.
Click to expand...
I did provide a link. I also provided quotes from it.
Since you say it says only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist, why don't you quote from the decision to show were exactly they say that. The decision is filled with page after page where they talk about it is federal offices that require Congress to apply. They never once say that only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist. They say only Congress can prevent someone from holding federal office if they are an insurrectionist.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I did provide a link. I also provided quotes from it.
Since you say it says only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist, why don't you quote from the decision to show were exactly they say that. The decision is filled with page after page where they talk about it is federal offices that require Congress to apply. They never once say that only Congress can determine who is an insurrectionist. They say only Congress can prevent someone from holding federal office if they are an insurrectionist.
Click to expand...
I posted the decision in #806. Read the decision for yourself. You're simply playing word games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top