HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

Jarod said:
The writers of the 14th realized the concepts they were enshrining in the Constitution were not case specific, but properly for a Constitution, were broad concepts.. Guiding principals that were designed to fit more than the present situation. It says what it says with little room for interpretation, Id say less room than the 2nd Amendment. To end birth right citizenship, you would need to Amend.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to foreign nationals or their children.
 
"It wasn't written for the mob either." IN #815
Click to expand...
2+2=7,821.563
Thanks for keeping me honest einstein. All these obvious lies I spew gratuitously to undermine my own credibility disgrace reality.
Thank god we have such paragons of ignorance as you to contradict reality, or the People would be at risk of avoiding being disinformed.
 
Jarod said:
Not sure what you are asking, I understand that rights are balanced when they conflict with each other, and that regulations must be reasonable.
Click to expand...

What is 'reasonable' about requiring a certain kind of toilet? What is 'reasonable' about requiring a certain type of light bulb? What is 'reasonable' about being forced to take your shoes off at the airport? What is 'reasonable' about imposing the right to own this model gun or that model gun, but not another model of gun, strictly because of how 'scary it looks' (or any other reason)? What is 'reasonable' about taxing incomes, when it's almost impossible to define what 'income' means? What is 'reasonable' about banning lead in bullets, but not lead in batteries or airbags? What is 'reasonable' about calling a fruit a 'vegetable' for tax reasons? What is 'reasonable' or 'balanced' about ANY of these regulations??
 
sear said:
To be foolishly generous, this quoted assertion of yours is as "creative" as Trump's on the 14th Amendment.

So you think the courts don't have the authority to exercise their enumerated judicial powers, but President Trump does?! I sincerely wish you were only joking.

One obvious example:
There'd been a debate raging in the U.S. for centuries about the specific meaning of our 2nd Amendment.
- Did 2A apply only to "well regulated militia"? Would it only apply to paramilitary commanders with rank and command structures? OR !!
- Did 2A protect individual citizen rights.

Either way 2A is among the most poorly, ambiguously worded passages in our amended Constitution. And the reason prior assertions about the decision being up to individual citizens is, it's unworkable. If Bruce says it's not legal to carry his AR-15 down Main Street at noon on Saturday, but Julia says it's legal for her to carry her AR-15 down Main Street at noon on Saturday, police can't simply consult each citizen's opinion on how each law is to be interpreted.
That's what our law courts are for.

There are several useful, authoritative law resources online.
If you quote any of them, with link, that EXPLICITLY supports your claim, I may reconsider it. I'm confident you will not.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment does not grant any right, but it does specifically mention two related rights, and specifically prohibits the federal government from interfering with them.

Man has the right to self defense. That is inherent in the rights of Man as Man. It is not granted by the 2nd amendment. That amendment only acknowledges that right.
A State has the right to self defense. That is inherent in the rights of a a State as a State. States do this through a militia (the citizens of that State organized into a functioning military body). The 2nd amendment only acknowledges this right. It does not grant it.

Many States also acknowledged the right of Man to self defense, and also are prohibited from interfering with that right by their own constitutions. The 2nd amendment applies to the federal government and all States because of the nature of the origin of these rights.

It is legal to carry an AR-15 down Main Street at noon on Saturday. Brandishing it, though, is another story (unless you're in California, which is no longer a State of the Union since it no longer honors either the U.S. Constitution or it's own constitution).

You simply cannot pick and choose what part of the Constitution you like and what part you want to ignore. It's a package deal.

That also means you can't use the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to a foreign national or their children.
 
Nordberg said:
Debate on the second is because it is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Not so the 14th. Also no doubt that the prez does not have the ability to change the constitution via EOs.
Click to expand...

No, the 2nd amendment is clear. There only one interpretation of it. The individual has the right to self defense. The States have the right to self defense.
The 14th is clear. It does not grant citizenship to foreign nationals or their children.

Trump is not changing the Constitution. An executive order he signs to end the practice of 'anchor babies' is simply reversing an executive order that Kennedy made. The 14th amendment is not even involved. Trump has full authority to sign such an order, and Congress has the full authority to implement such a law (a better solution).
 
Into the Night said:
The States, and in turn, the people. The States are the owners of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change or interpret the Constitution. They have no authority over the Constitution at all. They MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. See Article III.
Click to expand...

You need to read Marbury v. Madison.

You don't think cases striking down laws against state mandated segregation, bi-racial marriage, sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, refusing to act against one's religious views, government mandated religious actions, etc. changed or interpreted the Constitution? They certainly reversed how the law was applied.
 
sear said:
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
But you raise a separate, different issue.

The false claim was that it's either the citizen, or the 10th Amendment, not the judicial branch that has the legal authority to interpret the Constitution. I refuted this.

Either way, it's the courts, not the citizen that designates the meaning of our Constitution. And sometimes it can be QUITE A STRETCH !!

“Well article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Beginning in the 1930's progressives used the commerce clause to claim that the government could do virtually anything it wished. It culminated in the case mentioned in the opening post to this thread, Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, Mr. Filburn had grown a few hundred bushels of wheat over his allotment in FDR's disasterous price fixing scheme. The wheat was entirely for Filburn's own consumption but the Supreme Court held that Filburn's fines were Constitutional because the wheat he grew for himself would otherwise have to be procured off of the open market and that affected interstate commerce.
After that there were practically no limits to the scope of government power.” Cincinnatus87

Right or wrong, our law courts, our judicial branch that has this authority. Thus the term "legislation from the bench".
Click to expand...

The court (and FDR) exceeded their authority.
 
kudzu said:
A militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

The militia IS the civil population organized into a military. The militia of a State (mentioned in the 2nd amendment) is organized from the citizens of that State. It is the inherent right of a State to defend itself, just as it is the inherent right of an individual to protect himself.

Thus: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (obviously, since it is the right of any free State to defend itself), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (obviously, since it is the right of an individual to defend himself) , shall not be infringed.

That means no 'arm' is specified. It means ALL arms. It means machine guns, pistols, swords, knives, poisons, baseball bats, bow and arrows, hidden blade, concealed pistol, an AR-15, a grenade, a martial art, a poison dart blowgun, ANYTHING that a person can pick up and use.

Yes, that means a nuke, even though it is impractical a defensive weapon for almost all cases.
 
kudzu said:
Both were passed by Congress.. Do you know how that works?
Click to expand...

yes, but you see, like most of your posts, that is completely irrelevant to the thread.......the entire US Code was passed by Congress.......meanwhile neither of those statutes have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment......
 
sear said:
a) There is no such "right". You claim there is. But in the U.S., there is no Constitutional enumeration, no statutory foundation, no ordinance, or other legal specification that renders such "right".
Click to expand...
The Constitution of the United States doesn't create an exhaustive list of rights. It's purpose is to define and organize the federal government, and to declare what authority it has. It is owned by the States. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution or to change it. Through the States, the people.
sear said:
b) If it is available at all as you assert it is, it's an option of opportunity. For legal validity that's about as sure as raping a kidnap victim. Even if the perpetrator gets away with it that doesn't mean it's not a crime. So the law you're advocating here is the law of the jungle, might makes right. That plays no role in Constitutional law.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. It was force that created the Colonies, their freedom and liberty, and the United States itself. If you'll recall, the United States came out of an oppressive monarchy and fought a war with that monarchy to win it's independence. It fought a war with that monarchy again to keep its independence. That's force, dude.
sear said:
I invite you to quote with link any authoritative source that corroborates your claim. But you won't because you can't, because there isn't.
Click to expand...
I don't need a link to refer to the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

...or perhaps you deny these wars ever occurred.
 
kudzu said:
Actually, its dependent on the LAW.

The Militia Act of 1792 - Constitution Society

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Of course this was repealed by the Militia Act of 1903.
Click to expand...

None of it affected the State militias, other than they could no longer be called out by the President to defend the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top