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

Earl said:
You could have just saved a lot of time, Pobre, and admitted hours ago that you were wrong.

Good of you to finally admit it.

Trump, Trump, Trump!

Trump.
Click to expand...

Let's continue with more of the court ruling on Trump being a rapist.

And since the jury’s answer to Question 1 demonstrates that it was unconvinced that there was penile penetration, the only remaining conclusion is that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina with his fingers – in other words, that he“raped” her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.

In other words in the sense of the term broader than New York Penal Law...
Trump is a Rapist!
 
Earl said:
He will be soon telling us that he really, really isn't stupid, just uninformed.

Late breakfast...fried pork tenderloin, biscuits, and gravy.

My favorite. Mas tarde.
Click to expand...
Is Trump finally going to sue me for defamation after your breakfast? Or is he going to let me keep saying this forever because it is factually true?


Trump is a Rapist!
 
Jarod said:
Look up "precedent" and "Stare Decius".
Click to expand...
Look up "Roe v. Wade" and "Stare Decisis" and tell me that the SCOTUS cannot change a ruling based on new information or new Jurists because you believe they are bound to every decision good or bad forever into eternity.
 
Jarod said:
These babies born in the United States committed a crime?
Click to expand...
Their parents did. Like every other child they are affected by the choices of the parents that have control over their lives. If they drive drunk and get arrested they are separated from their children... However with deportation those babies can travel with their parents regardless of their being considered a citizen, their parents have that right. And those kids, when they turn 18, can choose to come back to the US, legally even since they are citizens, if the SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of enforcing whatever EO they write on this.
 
Into the Night said:
The only authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing in the 14th amendment changes the jurisdiction an illegal immigrant or their so-called 'anchor babies' are subject to. They should be deported back to their jurisdiction (after serving their time here for any convictions or crimes committed in the United States).

The Pretender has no valid citation, and he doesn't understand what 'jurisdiction' means.
Click to expand...
Legally jurisdiction doesn't just mean that you can charge them with a crime in the US, it assumes allegiance. When they wrote this they were leaving Native Americans out, the idea that they couldn't be charged with a crime committed outside their own territory is absurd. Of course they could. However "the jurisdiction thereof" was added to exclude them from birth citizenship as they were subjects of another "nation" (whatever tribal law they held allegiance to) and therefore if they were born in a hospital outside their reservation territory or territories of their tribe they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

Now, some decisions later were made by the SCOTUS that disregard that piece, but it is clear in the writing that they specifically wanted to exclude Native Americans from birthright citizenship, unless they denounced their citizenship to their outside nation... anyway. I think they may be able to make a legal argument based on some of those rulings. It took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to grant those folks birthright citizenship because the 14th didn't apply to them... even though laws applied to them.
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
You're a drippy phoney. Move along now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for another retort made by a 13 year old.

Care to provide evidence supporting your claim that the USSC ruling says only Congress can determine who committed insurrection?
The USSC ruling I see says the opposite. It says states and Federal district attorneys can determine who is an insurrectionist.

as noted, States did disqualify persons from holding
state offices following ratification of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.
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 Act
authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in
federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative of-
fice—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made
holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3
a federal crime.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Thanks for another retort made by a 13 year old.

Care to provide evidence supporting your claim that the USSC ruling says only Congress can determine who committed insurrection?
The USSC ruling I see says the opposite. It says states and Federal district attorneys can determine who is an insurrectionist.

as noted, States did disqualify persons from holding
state offices following ratification of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.
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 Act
authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in
federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative of-
fice—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made
holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3
a federal crime.
Click to expand...
You talk a lot, but you don't really say anything. You must be a Democrat.
 
Damocles said:
Legally jurisdiction doesn't just mean that you can charge them with a crime in the US, it assumes allegiance. When they wrote this they were leaving Native Americans out, the idea that they couldn't be charged with a crime committed outside their own territory is absurd. Of course they could. However "the jurisdiction thereof" was added to exclude them from birth citizenship as they were subjects of another "nation" (whatever tribal law they held allegiance to) and therefore if they were born in a hospital outside their reservation territory or territories of their tribe they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

Now, some decisions later were made by the SCOTUS that disregard that piece, but it is clear in the writing that they specifically wanted to exclude Native Americans from birthright citizenship, unless they denounced their citizenship to their outside nation... anyway. I think they may be able to make a legal argument based on some of those rulings. It took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to grant those folks birthright citizenship because the 14th didn't apply to them... even though laws applied to them.
Click to expand...
If the word jurisprudence assumes allegiance then the 14th amendment becomes complete nonsense and no state would be required to give equal protection to the citizens of other states. The arguments you are making are complete nonsense and no court could possible accept them without blowing up 200 years of US legal precedence.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But then when we look at the other times jurisdiction is used in the Constitution it makes even less sense for jurisdiction to mean allegiance.

From Art IV section 2
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

If a citizen of Florida commits a crime in New York and then flees to Pennsylvania, which state would the person be delivered to during extradition? The crime has no allegiance. The only way jurisdiction makes sense in all uses is if it is territorial and not allegiance.

I suggest you look at the other times that the word jurisdiction is used in the Constitution and try changing the word to allegiance and see how ridiculous your argument becomes.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It isn't a lie. It is the truth. You can read it here.

Trump is a rapist!

You should let Trump know I keep saying it so we can see if he is willing to sue me. I'm not going to get sued and if I am sued I will win and he will likely lose an anit-SLAPP lawsuit since he and his lawyers know it is the truth.
Click to expand...

Typical narcissist, thinks he's important and has something that makes it worthwhile suing over, like every other halfwit with high self-esteem and zero sense. Your $100 net worth wouldn't even cover the cab fare to court.
 
Damocles said:
Look up "Roe v. Wade" and "Stare Decisis" and tell me that the SCOTUS cannot change a ruling based on new information or new Jurists because you believe they are bound to every decision good or bad forever into eternity.
Click to expand...
Birthright citizenship has been settled law a lot longer than Roe versus Wade was. They chipped away at Roe versus Wade for decades before they overturned it.

But it is true, it’s a small chance the ruling could be overturned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top