Is there any part of the Constitution Republicans aren't against?

[StoneByStone]

You're both a n-lover and an Obama supporter. The proof is in your posts.

Yes, my posts saying that America shouldn't allow non-white immigration and that non-white people shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's proof, right?

 

[gfm7175]

No, he said "this phony emoluments clause."

Continued Contextomy Fallacy. See my prior response.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Trump actually read muh constitution and decided he didn't agree with parts of it.

Speculation.

I'm sure he hasn't read it at all and couldn't care less what it says.

Inversion Fallacy. This is YOUR issue, not Trump's.

But can you imagine the reaction Republicans would give if a Democrat said something like that?

Irrelevant. Doesn't change what was said, nor its context.

Good thing Trump has that Magic R.

Trump's political affiliation is irrelevant.

 

[StoneByStone]

Trump's political affiliation is irrelevant.

Out of all the lies you told, this is the biggest. If Obama or Hillary did this, you'd pretend it was a big deal.

 

[CFM]

Yes, my posts saying that America shouldn't allow non-white immigration and that non-white people shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's proof, right?

Those are a cover for your true feelings. You thought you could fool me but I see right through your n-l'ing

 

[StoneByStone]

Those are a cover for your true feelings. You thought you could fool me but I see right through your n-l'ing

You're such a troll.

 

[CFM]

You're such a troll.

Yet you've provided no proof of that claim.

 

[gfm7175]

Out of all the lies you told, this is the biggest. If Obama or Hillary did this, you'd pretend it was a big deal.

I don't play the identity games that you play. You continue to take what Trump said out of context.

 

[StoneByStone]

I don't play the identity games that you play.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess it's just an actor pretending to be Trump.

Frankly, I wouldn't put it past NBC to do that (they've done it before!), but no, you are reading more into the video than is there. Trump never called the emoluments clause phony.

 

[gfm7175]

 

[Flash]

It applies to the States. A State can't quarter any organized militia in your home either.

No, it has never been made applicable to the states. If it applied the courts would not have been considering the issue when the state quartered troops in the barracks of the prison guards. It is one of the few rights that have not been incorporated.

I know you don't believe in incorporation but it is a very important part of constitutional law which the federal and state governments all follow.

 

[Into the Night]

No, it has never been made applicable to the states.

The 3rd amendment has always been applicable to the States.

If it applied the courts would not have been considering the issue when the state quartered troops in the barracks of the prison guards. It is one of the few rights that have not been incorporated.

Sure they would, if the right is being violated.

I know you don't believe in incorporation but it is a very important part of constitutional law which the federal and state governments all follow.

What 'incorporation'?

 

[Flash]

What 'incorporation'?

It was well understood when Congress proposed the 12 amendments originally submitted in the Bill of Rights that those amendments only applied to the federal government. The entire purpose was to placate those opposed to the stronger powers given to the central government by limiting its power so they would ratify the document.

No right can be violated if it does not apply.

 

[Into the Night]

It was well understood when Congress proposed the 12 amendments originally submitted in the Bill of Rights that those amendments only applied to the federal government.

No, some of them have always applied to the State governments as well. Some of them do not and still don't. There has been no 'incorporation' as you describe it.

The entire purpose was to placate those opposed to the stronger powers given to the central government by limiting its power so they would ratify the document.

No. It was also to clarify limits on the federal government, and to declare agreements between State governments.

No right can be violated if it does not apply.

No right comes from the Constitution. Rights do not come from a piece of paper. The Bill of Rights is not about providing rights. It's about limiting government to not interfere with certain specific rights.

You have the right to defend yourself. That right is inherent. It does not come from the Constitution.
You have the right to your property. You paid for it or created it. That does not come from the Constitution.
You have the right to believe what you want to believe. No government can change that.

The Bill of Rights protects these inherent rights by specifically limiting government from interfering with them. They are not the only rights. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is to construe an exhaustive list of rights.

The Bill of Rights is not the only part of the Constitution.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution. The President does not have authority to change the Constitution. They are each agents created by that Constitution. That contract is created by the States. It is owned by the States. Only the States can change it. The agents created by such a contract cannot modify the contract that created them!

For your State and local constitutions, it is the same thing, except the owners of those contracts are the people of that State (or county, or parish, or city; depending on which constitution you are discussing).

This is what a republic is...governance by law, not by men.

 

[Flash]

No, some of them have always applied to the State governments as well. Some of them do not and still don't. There has been no 'incorporation' as you describe it.

Completely untrue. The Congress that proposed those amendments all understood clearly that the entire purpose was to restrict the powers of the federal government and that was the accepted interpretation of the courts for many years.

Claiming incorporation never happened is like saying WWII never happened.

 

[Into the Night]

Completely untrue. The Congress that proposed those amendments all understood clearly that the entire purpose was to restrict the powers of the federal government and that was the accepted interpretation of the courts for many years.

The courts do not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III. You do not get to speak for anyone in Congress. You only get to speak for you.

Claiming incorporation never happened is like saying WWII never happened.

False equivalence fallacy.

 

[Truth Detector]

Republicans and Donald Trump have misunderstood the meaning of the Constitution.

Apparently Mr. Howard stated... This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. end quote.

The commas after the word foreigners, and then after the word aliens, were meant to connect the two terms to what follows immediately thereafter, the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.

What Mr. Jacob Howard was saying was foreign dignitaries who are in the United States and who have offspring born in the U.S. do not have to worry about their children being U.S. citizens. No different than if U.S. dignitaries in other countries bore their children in another country would not have to worry about their children being called citizens of the country they were born in.

The U.S. was so anxious to have both Naturalized and Natural born citizens back then that Mr. Howard then concludes by stating "but will include every other class of persons". end quote.

In other words, the only people who are born on U.S. soil who WILL NOT be considered U.S. citizens are those who are the offspring of foreign political dignitaries, and this was done out of a quid pro quo because obviously American officials in foreign countries who have offspring in that country would most likely not want their kids to not be U.S. citizens.

Wasn't John McCain born on a military base outside of the U.S., I think it was Panama? McCain was still considered a U.S. Natural Born citizen even though he was born outside of the United States and in a foreign country. The same courtesy, but in reverse, is being offered to foreign dignitaries who reside in the U.S. when their offspring are born.

Apparently you misunderstand what ILLEGAL ALIEN means.

The President is responsible for foreign policy decisions and protecting our borders. Not Pelosi; Not Adam Schiff and certainly NOT the US Congress.

 

[Flash]

The courts do not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III. You do not get to speak for anyone in Congress. You only get to speak for you.

Forget the courts. The purpose of the Bill of Rights according to those who wrote and voted for those 12 amendments determined their meaning.

You don't get to interpret those amendments contrary to their clearly stated purpose and intent.

 

[Into the Night]

Forget the courts. The purpose of the Bill of Rights according to those who wrote and voted for those 12 amendments determined their meaning.

You don't get to interpret those amendments contrary to their clearly stated purpose and intent.

The States amended the Constitution with those 12 amendments. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution. Only the States can amend the Constitution. Only the States own the Constitution.
I am not stating anything that is different than what is written there. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.

 

[domer76]

The States amended the Constitution with those 12 amendments. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution. Only the States can amend the Constitution. Only the States own the Constitution.
I am not stating anything that is different than what is written there. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.

“Inversion fallacy”

lol

No such thing.

Stupid fuck.