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

[Jarod]

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.

You can take a baby right to citizenship away simply because their parents committed a crime.

They might leave with their deported parents, but they are still a citizen.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

You are the one saying Trump should sue. It's nice that you think Trump is a narcissist who sues over every little thing.

Too bad you still haven't figured out how to calculate net worth. It's not the same thing as walking around money.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You can take a baby right to citizenship away simply because their parents committed a crime.

They might leave with their deported parents, but they are still a citizen.

I suppose Damacles will then bitch when foreign countries start demanding payment to support US citizens that they were forced to take in.

 

[EdwinA]

You are the one saying Trump should sue. It's nice that you think Trump is a narcissist who sues over every little thing.

Too bad you still haven't figured out how to calculate net worth. It's not the same thing as walking around money.

Hey, I just over-estimated your net worth because I made an allowance for your Mommy pitching $75 or so. My bad.

 

[EdwinA]

You can take a baby right to citizenship away simply because their parents committed a crime.

They might leave with their deported parents, but they are still a citizen.

Ever consider sniveling to the countries and people who created the 'refugees' in the first place? No, you don',t because you're an idiot. You pay no taxes, so you think it costs you nothing to squat out in the Burbs be a faux 'humanitarian' and armchair 'Commie'; it;s not like you would ever step up and sponsor any of these 'refugees' yourself.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hey, I just over-estimated your net worth because I made an allowance for your Mommy pitching $75 or so. My bad.

And you decided you would show us again you don't know how to calculate net worth.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

They didn’t say

Yes, they did. It's mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, they did. It's mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

And here you are again, claiming something is in a legal document and then when asked to provide your evidence of it being there, you will be unable to defend your argument.

Where does the 14th amendment provide the proper procedure to remove anyone for insurrection?


I'll give you a hint. Even the USSC says it isn't in there. Can you tell us why the USSC said the procedure isn't in the amendment?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

And here you are again, claiming something is in a legal document and then when asked to provide your evidence of it being there, you will be unable to defend your argument.

Where does the 14th amendment provide the proper procedure to remove anyone for insurrection?


I'll give you a hint. Even the USSC says it isn't in there. Can you tell us why the USSC said the procedure isn't in the amendment?

You poor pitiful needy creature.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, they did. It's mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

False

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You poor pitiful needy creature.

I see you can't provide your evidence. Unsurprising to say the least.

You made a claim. Since you can't back it up with any evidence, we can assume your claim is false.

 

[Damocles]

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.

You pretend that the rest of the history behind the Amendment doesn't exist, and that is where you fail. The whole reason that "Jurisdiction" was put there was to exclude Native Americans who were obviously and often copiously held to our laws, in the manner in which they used this word in this Amendment it means what I said it means and was held that way all the way until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, then magically rulings "evolved" and Jurisdiction means something else.

There is a whole school of law that regards what they meant when they wrote it to count more than what you "rule" on at any moment (Originalists)... and that, my friend, is what they meant and why they meant it that way. If you have enough originalists on the SCOTUS it is possible they will listen and may even agree, regardless of how many times you insist they should not because you think the word means something else and was used there in some other fashion.

How many Originalists are there on the SCOTUS currently? How many think they are originalists but do things like rewrite law to make Obamacare constitutional? (one of those)... It's possible that one will rule with originalists at any moment.

 

[Damocles]

You can take a baby right to citizenship away simply because their parents committed a crime.

They might leave with their deported parents, but they are still a citizen.

No part of that said they were not a citizen. Until something changes, at this time they are citizens. Though I can see a way they can argue in favor of Trump's proposed Executive Order.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You pretend that the rest of the history behind the Amendment doesn't exist, and that is where you fail. The whole reason that "Jurisdiction" was put there was to exclude Native Americans who were obviously and often copiously held to our laws, in the manner in which they used this word in this Amendment it means what I said it means and was held that way all the way until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, then magically rulings evolved and Jurisdiction means something else.

There is a whole school of law that regards what they meant when they wrote it to count more than what you "rule" on at any moment (Originalists)... and that, my friend, is what they meant and why they meant it that way. If you have enough originalists on the SCOTUS it is possible they will listen and may even agree, regardless of how many times you insist they should not because you think the word means something else and was used there in some other fashion.

How many Originalists are there on the SCOTUS currently? How many think they are originalists but do things like rewrite law to make Obamacare constitutional? (one of those)... It's possible that one will rule with originalists at any moment.

That argument again doesn't withstand scrutiny. The first thing is to look at the actual words. The reason for the amendment is not required.

There is not a whole school of law. There is a a school that is willing to bastardize the meaning to try to make it mean something other than what it clearly says.

If we can only look at the purpose of an amendment and ignore the words than we end up with more ridiculous arguments.

The purpose of the 15th amendment was to give freed slaves the right to vote.


Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

If we rely on the purpose of the amendment and not the wording than we can deny white people the right to vote on the basis of their race and color and the fact that they are never enslaved. Is that really the argument you want to make? Because it is certainly the argument you are making about the 14th.

The same argument you are making can them be applied to the 19th and 26th amendment and those over 21 have no Constitutional right to vote and men have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

 

[Jarod]

No part of that said they were not a citizen. Until something changes, at this time they are citizens. Though I can see a way they can argue in favor of Trump's proposed Executive Order.

They can certainly argue

 

[Damocles]

That argument again doesn't withstand scrutiny. The first thing is to look at the actual words. The reason for the amendment is not required.

There is not a whole school of law. There is a a school that is willing to bastardize the meaning to try to make it mean something other than what it clearly says.

If we can only look at the purpose of an amendment and ignore the words than we end up with more ridiculous arguments.

The purpose of the 15th amendment was to give freed slaves the right to vote.


Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

If we rely on the purpose of the amendment and not the wording than we can deny white people the right to vote on the basis of their race and color and the fact that they are never enslaved. Is that really the argument you want to make? Because it is certainly the argument you are making about the 14th.

The same argument you are making can them be applied to the 19th and 26th amendment and those over 21 have no Constitutional right to vote and men have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

If what you are saying was true then the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would never have been necessary, unfortunately it clearly was.

As I said, you have to deliberately ignore the history and how it applied right up until that moment in order to say it is your way. My best guess is you will see some sort of argument along those lines as soon as this hits the SCOTUS after Trump signs an Executive Order. (It will certainly hit the SCOTUS).

I do not predict good things for it though, I don't think enough originalists are on the court to give them the "win" on this. I also do not predict they will lose... The one thing I know and that I guarantee is that it will not be unanimous.

 

[Diogenes]

Do you even know how births happen? Your arguments would imply you have no clue.

​

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You pretend that the rest of the history behind the Amendment doesn't exist, and that is where you fail. The whole reason that "Jurisdiction" was put there was to exclude Native Americans who were obviously and often copiously held to our laws, in the manner in which they used this word in this Amendment it means what I said it means and was held that way all the way until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, then magically rulings "evolved" and Jurisdiction means something else.

Let's examine your argument about the Native Americans. Native Americans were on reservations. Those reservations were in some cases located within states. But the reservations were overseen by the federal government. The states had no power on those reservations. The state could not go onto the reservation and arrest anyone.

The 14th amendment makes the persons born in a state a citizen of that state.
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.
Were Native Americans residents of the states or territories where they resided at the time of the 14th amendment? Were they subject to the laws of those states? Were they subject to Federal laws and judged by federal courts when it came to crimes?

Dakota War of 1862 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you tell us why if the Native Americans were subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States and the state of Minnesota why they were not tried in state or Federal courts before being executed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If what you are saying was true then the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would never have been necessary, unfortunately it clearly was.

As I said, you have to deliberately ignore the history and how it applied right up until that moment in order to say it is your way. My best guess is you will see some sort of argument along those lines as soon as this hits the SCOTUS after Trump signs an Executive Order. (It will certainly hit the SCOTUS).

I do not predict good things for it though, I don't think enough originalists are on the court to give them the "win" on this. I also do not predict they will lose... The one thing I know and that I guarantee is that it will not be unanimous.

You ignore that Native Americans were not subject to the laws of states or the US government. They did not have the legal rights of citizens.

Dakota War of 1862 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tell us if Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts in 1862 in Minnesota.

 

[Diogenes]

Now if he is here braking into my house ANY time of the day he more then likely will be taken out either to an Ambulance or a Hurst .

I would think so. Did his brakes fail?

Why would you give him a new shifter if he's hurt?

So many questions....