Exit poll data...

PostmodernProphet said:
14th amendment, son.....passed to make freed slaves citizens having unintended consequences in the 21st Century......it would have to be amended to stop anchor babies.....

however, you are correct in pointing out that the Italian trial lawyer from Florida has cited the 1st amendment, which is irrelevant to this issue.......unless he is claiming the US has passed a law prohibiting someone from speaking about what country they are coming from.......
Click to expand...

14th Amendment doesn't override immigration law. Plus it is a very simple fix. First off I don't agree with Trump from a practical sense. I agree with keeping muslimes out. I would halt all immigration from Middle East regardless of religion. Problem solved and Gayrod can extinguish the fire on his tampon string.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
14th amendment, son.....passed to make freed slaves citizens having unintended consequences in the 21st Century......it would have to be amended to stop anchor babies.....

however, you are correct in pointing out that the Italian trial lawyer from Florida has cited the 1st amendment, which is irrelevant to this issue.......unless he is claiming the US has passed a law prohibiting someone from speaking about what country they are coming from.......
Click to expand...

If you are using religion as a reason to deny entry or reentry into the United States, you are violating the 1st Amendment, to say otherwise illustrates your ignorance about the Constitution.
 
callinectes said:
He probably could have been a bit more elegant in the presentation of his islamic immigration proposal, but at least you know where he stands, and would you be more comfortable if he had just rattled off a list of islamic countries?

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment? Wasn't part of it to ensure the citizenship of children born to slaves? So if there is no more slavery, who is this protecting? And what of the illegals who come here with the specific INTENT to bear children here so as to secure citizenship? At the very least, this situation warrants review and clarification(as I'm sure there are parts of the Constitution you don't particularly agree with)
Click to expand...

There is a lot more to the 14th than to allow citizenship of children born to slaves, wow, what do they teach in the Public Schools where you are from? WOW... Are you saying it only implies to former slaves? Really?

Had trump rattled off a number of countries he would ban it would have been a Constitutional proposal, but the Christians would have had a shit fit because they are desperate to get some groups of Christians out of those countries for safety reasons (rightfully so).
 
Jarod said:
There is a lot more to the 14th than to allow citizenship of children born to slaves, wow, what do they teach in the Public Schools where you are from? WOW... Are you saying it only implies to former slaves? Really?

Had trump rattled off a number of countries he would ban it would have been a Constitutional proposal, but the Christians would have had a shit fit because they are desperate to get some groups of Christians out of those countries for safety reasons (rightfully so).
Click to expand...

Gerud, how do you think the SCOTUS would respond to your fictitious reading of the Free Exercise Clause?
 
Jean said:
Cruz is stupid and naive. He goes around blaring wildly "Kill the terrorists!" but is opposed to the drone strike program (apparently because Obama operates it). Teddy Roosevelt said to "Speak softly and carry a big stick", Cruz's philosophy is apparently to run around screaming like an idiot while being totally defenseless.
Click to expand...
he's not "opposed to drone strike" he's opposed to it's overuse -preferring some captures for interrogations at Gitmo -
and I believe he would waterboard but only at POTUS specific direction ( no lower officers)..
Currently we do not seek to capture, only kill. Make of that what you will.

He knows his way around the ME, and foreign policy, but he is an uber-hawk as well.

PS. he opposes droning US citizens as "now you are an "imminent" threat because, as a suspected member of Al Qaeda or an "associated force,"

and wants the drone program removed from the CIA - for transparency

Senate Judiciary Committee April 13 2013 /Transcript of Cruz Testimony
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
he's not "opposed to drone strike" he's opposed to it's overuse -preferring some captures for interrogations at Gitmo -
and I believe he would waterboard but only at POTUS specific direction ( no lower officers)..
Currently we do not seek to capture, only kill. Make of that what you will.

He knows his way around the ME, and foreign policy, but he is an uber-hawk as well
Click to expand...

Anybody who would okay waterboarding or any other torture isn't fit to be president.
 
anatta said:
well it's a narrow use. it would be only to stop a terrorist attack ( why only POTUS could use it) in exigent circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the link. If a person is being tortured that means he's in custody and can't pull off a terrorist attack. I don't see how it's a deterrent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top