[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: Birthright citizenship in the United States Current U.S. law Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States Constitution. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "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."[10] Statute, by birth within U.S. United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: "
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians. John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause.[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha. The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The United States Congress later enacted The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the US Constitution; however no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed the majority opinion offered on Elk v. Wilkins including the detailed definitions of the terms of the 14th Amendment as written by Justice Gray. The Elk v. Wilkins opinion remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment, but has been rendered undebatable for its application to native Indians due to the Act of Congress.
Indian Citizenship Act The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-39) not displayed.
#40. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#25) If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 14[t]h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more. This is emphatically incorrect. The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress. The common law rule of jus soli already existed in the United States, since day 1, and the 14th Amendment did not change that.
#41. To: nolu chan (#40) The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress. Which Senator stated that?
#42. To: A K A Stone (#34) We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose. And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere. If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere. They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them. Diplomatic immunity should never include the right to kill our people. If they kill our people they should be punished. If a country doesn't like that deal. We can kill their country.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#39) Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans. And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination" That applies to Mexican, American, and all other flavors of Goyim... especially if you happen to be Kosher meat packer illegally employing over 400 of them!
#45. To: VxH (#44) And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination" They should exple the muslims. Since they can do whatever they want right.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#45) Since they can do whatever they want "PRAISED BE HE WHO PERMITS THE FORBIDDEN"
www.google.com/search? q=p...s+the+forbidden+sabbatean { golf clap ]
#47. To: A K A Stone, Nolu Chan (#43) They are still subject to our jurisdiction. Respectfully, Stone, you're misunderstanding this word. "Jursidiction" doesn't mean "subject to power". It means subject to the rulings of a COURT. It's not about executive power, it's about judicial power, about the power of judges to judge you, as a person (in personam jurisdiction), or to issue judgment over a thing (say, a ship) (in rem jurisdiction), or to preside over a case on a specific subject matter (example: family court) (subject matter jurisdiction). It does not refer to the police power, which is executive branch stuff. It does not refer to the power to make rules, which is legislative branch stuff. It is a very specific legal term that refers to the power of a specific court to judge a case and impose a penalty. "JURIS" means law. "Diction" refers to speaking. Jurisdiction refers to the power of a judge to pronounce a binding decision at law. Murder is illegal in the USA and everywhere else, but US courts do not have the jurisdiction to try murder cases that happen between two regular Norwegians in Trondheim. It didn't happen on us soil (the location was not subject to US courts), it did not happen between people who could be haled before US Courts (US courts can't judge Norwegians in Norway for things that happen in Norway). The crime committed there is a crime here too, and US cops could certainly arrest the Norwegian culprit who got caught here, if there were an Interpol report or an international warrant. But the district attorney could not bring that murder case before the state court, because the crime didn't happen under US jurisdiction, and the persons involved were not subject to US law when they did it.
On the other hand, a Norwegian traveler killing another Norwegian while in a US airport CAN be tried in US court for the murder, because it occurred on US soil, and whatever happens on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction...unless it happened in the Norwegian embassy (then things get murky and there might be a fight IF Norway wasn't going to hold the killer accountable), or unless the killer was a Norwegian diplomat. Then he could be arrested, but whether or not he could be tried would depend on the terms of our agreement with Norway. Norway could waive diplomatic immunity, and then our courts could try the guy.
Jurisdiction is a legal term with a specific meaning: it refers to the authority of the courts to try a case. Illegal aliens can be tried for anything they do on US soil. Therefore, they are subject to US jurisdiction, full stop. That's what the word means. It doesn't mean subject to arrest, it means subject to trial.
#48. To: All (#0) You might want to read page 2890 of The Congressional Globe dated 30 May 1866. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage? collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
"I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the US and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the US". "This will not of course include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the US but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the US". Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians! #49. To: Vicomte13 (#47) Vic you're a smart guy no doubt. You have also been taught things that is legalise talking points bullshit. Read cz82s post above this and see the truth.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#49) The Immigration Bill of 1897 would have required immigrants to pass a literacy test. Was / is that a good idea? Why or why not.
#51. To: VxH (#8) You the only commie here. You are the biggest CT person on this site and that says a good deal about you.
#52. To: Justified (#51) (Edited) Spam deleted. Take the day off.
#53. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#43)
They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them. WRONG. The law which applies to accredited diplomats is an international treaty to which the United States is a party and signatory, namely the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961 and entered into force on 24 April 1964. The United States signed on 29 June 1961, and ratified on 13 November 1972. We do not have to let them stay. See Article 9, quoted below. When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country. See Article 39, quoted below.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-diplomatic-immunity.html
What Is Diplomatic Immunity?
#54. To: A K A Stone (#36)
If you read the constitution about equal protection. If that was followed to a T. Diplomatic immunity would be unconstitutional. 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause
... nor shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Immunity from criminal prosecution for diplomats is part of the supreme law of the land. The United States government has granted immunity to diplomats. It is a Federal action, not a State action. Diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of any State.
#55. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, All (#9) The 14th was for and only slaves. It has been stated as such many times since. The Elk v Wilkins reaffirmed it. This is why we have the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 because even if born on American soil you are not a citizen. Im not sure how it could be any clearer. I believe even the writer of the 14th stated as much. The 14th has been bastardized to allow anyone born on US soil ie US Jurisdiction to be US citizen even though they really are under the jurisdiction of the parents country. I think people really have to tie themselves into a legal pretzel to say otherwise.
JMHO
#56. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans. The 14th Amendment says nothing about Mexicans or anyone else who has babies. It speaks of newborn babies, persons born. It does not speak of parentage, and makes no distinction between parentage by citizens, lawful aliens or unlawful aliens, nor between permanent residents or temporary visitors. Neither did the common law which prevailed before the 14th Amendment, and which was carried forth by the 14th Amendment, placing birthright citizenship beyond the reach of Congressional legislation. The 14th Amendment speaks of "subject to the jurisdiction." Blackstone, Commentaries on the Common Law of England (1765)
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors. The United States does not have a king, and does not recognize any royal prerogative. It follows that we do not have the category of denizen. We have citizens and we have aliens, only.
I do respect your opinions though unlike some others here. I respect Vics as well. I just don't agree. Other constitutional experts also agree with me. As others agree with you. You can disagree with my opinion all you want. The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution, is the law of the land, whether you or I agree with it or not. I am doing my best to express what the law is, not what I think it should be. Perhaps we should pass an amendment to establish that babies of illegal or undocumented aliens shall not be granted birthright citizenship. The fact remains that we have not done that. It is beyond any and all doubt that illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States, and their newborn child is born within the jurisdiction of the United States. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-15 (1982)
II
#57. To: Justified (#55) The 14th was for and only slaves. It has been stated as such many times since. The Elk v Wilkins reaffirmed it. You are wrong. The 14th was not only for slaves. Elk did not affirm that. The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment did not say that. People should give up on Elk already. That argument has long been weighed and found wanting.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1898)
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country. The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States," by the addition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law,) the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England, and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 171; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155 ; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#45) GFY dickhead.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#41)
The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Mr. HOWARD. ... This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
#60. To: CZ82 (#48)
You might want to read page 2890 of The Congressional Globe dated 30 May 1866. You may want to read my #13 and then read the Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark which remains citable good law today. One of the SCOTUS quotes in my #13 is from Wong Kim Ark:
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 699 (1898), Gray J. See this, also from Wong Kim Ark. I would recommend reading Federal judicial precedent which controls the legal meaning of the words of the Amendment, rather than Congressional debate comments, which do not. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687-88 (1897) Opinion of the Court (6-2)
The words " in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange; and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words, " out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word " jurisdiction " in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
#61. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#47) "Jursidiction" doesn't mean "subject to power". It means subject to the rulings of a COURT. It's not about executive power, it's about judicial power, about the power of judges to judge you, as a person (in personam jurisdiction), or to issue judgment over a thing (say, a ship) (in rem jurisdiction), or to preside over a case on a specific subject matter (example: family court) (subject matter jurisdiction). What you said, Vic.
#62. To: nolu chan (#57) If you are right America is dead. There is no other way to stop anchor babies because the will of the congress will never ever amend the constitution again. We are too divided. Unless you have another way to stop anchor baby? When in America our extreme poverty is middle class for half the world. 3.5 billion people just need a way to get here.
#63. To: Justified, Vicomte13 (#62)
Unless you have another way to stop anchor baby? When in America our extreme poverty is middle class for half the world. 3.5 billion people just need a way to get here. An Executive Order is a non-starter. An Amendment is very difficult, and in the current Senate, impossible to get passed. As a very far outside possibility, perhaps a piece of legislation could be fashioned to remove the jurisdiction of the Court to hear any case brought by an illegal alien or person not lawfully admitted to the United States. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states that "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress has the authority to limit the appellate the authority of the Court to hear cases, and it has been done. See Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) 8-0. Between having heard the case, and before a decision was issued, the Court was stopped dead in its tracks and jurisdiction to decide the case was taken away. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/506/ But be aware that this once used Legislative power may function like Harry Reed using the nuclear option on Court appointments to lower the requirement to a simple majority. McCardle was a civil war era case, and that limiting power is dangerous when its use is acceptable. A real attack could be fashioned to mandate a national identification card and to impose severe penalties on anyone employing anyone without a valid picture ID Card certifying citizen or alien status, and whether an alien has a right to be employed in the United States. Counterfeit cards could incur severe penalties as well. Take away illegal employment and they will stop coming. Where there is a will, there may be a way, but it will not be as easy as issuing an Executive Order.
#64. To: nolu chan (#63) Constitutional experts agree the fourteenth doesn't grant citizenship to aliens illegally here. Only to former slaves. That is how you win. Take it to court. Yeah I know some other experts disagree. All the stuff you quoted is like quoting Roberts on Obamacare.
#65. To: Justified, nolu chan (#62) If you are right America is dead. There is no other way to stop anchor babies because the will of the congress will never ever amend the constitution again. We are too divided. Sure there is a way. And it's pretty easy. The President is doing it. You order the army and the national guard, the air force and the Coast Guard and the Navy to defend the border and prevent anybody from crossing it. That's just not that hard. It's expensive, but it isn't hard. That stops the flow, dead, for as long as you keep the armed forces deployed there. Then it's a matter of rounding up the illegals internally. To do that, you simply enforce the existing laws on the books. We have all of the tools necessary to completely stop illegal immigration - and the drug flows to boot - and to kick every illegal out of the country, if we want to do that. We have the massive military, the tech, and the massive law enforcement. The President has the power to deploy the military to do that, and to use federal forces to do that, and with a Republican Congress, the power to cut off federal funds to any Democrat area that won't enforce the law.
And that would be that. It's not that hard. It's just expensive. Not national-bankruptcy expensive, but expensive. We don't need to start pretending the Constitution doesn't say what it says in order to stop illegal immigration.
#66. To: A K A Stone (#64) That is how you win. Take it to court. You win if the Supreme Court votes your way. I'll bet you a steak dinner they won't.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64) Constitutional experts agree the fourteenth doesn't grant citizenship to aliens illegally here. Only to former slaves. Right offhand, I can think of nine of them. This is like advocating for birther arguments. https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf BIRTHER SCORECARD Birther arguments went 0-226 at the Trial Court, 0-120 at the Appeals Court, and 0-35 at the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe all were rejected or dismissed at the pre-trial stage.
#68. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#65) Vic that makes sense and I have with many others said the same thing about enforce the laws and do whatever it takes to keep illegals out. Between the libertarians, Regressives and never trumpers there just isn't the will to do the job. The way things are going we are head to a civil war and no one seems to be trying to stop it! We good Americans have bent over to a point we can't bend anymore. As for me I see the 14th for the slaves who had children that the demoncrats refused to allow as citizens. If you are here legal then you are under the jurisdiction of US but if you are not here legally ie illegal alien you are not under the jurisdiction of US but of the country you come from and are here illegally. All anyone would have to do is go any US soil including embassy and have a baby and the baby is now an American citizen. That's absolutely insane! Its just my opinion. Its just street everyday man common sense.
#69. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#68) To me this is like committing a crime and then benefiting from said crime. This would be like when Bernie Maddoff stole all the money but instead of giving it back to the victims the courts just said it was giving to his family and they did nothing wrong and so they get to keep it.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#64) Constitutional experts agree the fourteenth doesn't grant citizenship to aliens illegally here. Only to former slaves. I agree... and I believe Trump knows (inside info), that the 9 sitting USSC justices, would rule that way if the case comes in front of them. When Ginsburg dies, it’s absolutely GRAVELY IMPERATIVE, that we have Trump or Rand Paul in office. It’s more important that the invention of fire. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #71. To: Vicomte13, Justified (#65)
The President is doing it. You order the army and the national guard, the air force and the Coast Guard and the Navy to defend the border and prevent anybody from crossing it. That's just not that hard. It's expensive, but it isn't hard. There will still be the issue of visa overstays who drop an anchor baby. And we have to eliminate chain migration.
#72. To: Justified, Vicomte13 (#68)
As for me I see the 14th for the slaves who had children that the demoncrats refused to allow as citizens. The law is the words stated and what they mean. Intent is not part of legislative adoption. What was adopted was the words of the Amendment. The law of unintended results is real. The 14th was certainly for the newly freed slaves who had no pathway to citizenship under prevailing law. They were not born citizens. They were not aliens and could never meet the requirements for naturalization. Manumission was never a grant of U.S. citizenship. The 13th did not confer citizenship or voting rights.
If you are here legal then you are under the jurisdiction of US but if you are not here legally ie illegal alien you are not under the jurisdiction of US but of the country you come from and are here illegally. This is simply wrong as a matter of law. Citizens, lawful aliens, and unlawful aliens present in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, minus those few aliens who enjoy immunity, such as diplomats and visiting royalty. Declaring illegal imigrants to be not subject to United States jurisdiction would make them unprosecutable for crimes committed, like diplomats. As a solution, its worse than the problem. Immunity is a wonderful thing for those who have it. In NYC, they park wherever they want, whenever they want, and all Officer Clancy can do is give them a ticket which they can safely ignore.
#73. To: GrandIsland (#70) I would love for Rand Paul to be President after Trump.
#74. To: Justified (#68) Look, I agree with you: when the 14th Amendment was drafted, they were thinking about slaves. Specifically, they were thinking about the nasty racists who had just lost a civil war and who were hellbent on keeping the slaves down. They were also thinking of their future electoral majorities. The Republican North had just conquered the Democratic South. The Republicans controlled all branches of government and were in ascendancy. Those who had participated in rebellion had lost the vote. The Republicans wanted to make sure that every black in the South COULD vote, because they knew that they would all vote Republican, thereby significantly diluting the Democrat voting block. Nobody in 1865 envisioned illegal aliens flowing in from Mexico. They didn't envision women voting either. And none of that matters. The individual motivations, or collective motivations, of people who wrote statutes of the past does not matter. What matters is the words they wrote. They wrote broad words, and those are the words that are the law. Words are malleable. Courts, cops and legislatures manipulate them all the time. That is what has happened too: the malleable words of the 14th Amendment have been used to protect the birth right citisenship (the 26th letter key doesn't work on my computer) of children born to illegals. That was not intended, but it is what the words say. A court composed of liberal Democrats (4 of them) plus strict constructionists (4 of them) is not going to read that text and not find birth right citisenship. The one originalist can argue against it, based on the "intent" of the drafters, but people only care about intent if the intent is what the modern relying on it also intends. The tactic of reading legislative intent into laws and statutes is something the Left does routinely to stretch laws past their words. Example: the intent of the Constitution is to create broad rights of privacy. Therefore abortion on demand is the law of the land. That's how that sort of thing goes. In this case, you're too pessimistic about Trump and the Tea Partiers. Truth is, on Tuesday the Democrats and the Never Trumpers face their Waterloo. Huge numbers of Never Trumpers have already resigned. The Republicans are going to hold Congress, and that's going to be a Trumpish Tea Congress, not a Bushite Establishment Congress. Trump has won the argument, and the People will ratify that on Tuesday, and the new Congress will proceed with a will to enact Trump's agenda.
#75. To: A K A Stone (#73) I would love for Rand Paul to be President after Trump. I expect it will be 8 years of Pence after the 8 years of Trump, but Rand Paul is a young man, so it could very well be 8 years of Rand after 8 years of Pence. Trump's victory on Tuesday can seal the deal for a generation if the Republicans follow Trump, as opposed to doing what they have been doing since he was elected - half-heartedly following, quietly trying to backstab him. The Democrats behaved SO outrageously in their assaults on Trump that the people rallied to the Republicans, but with the Republicans holding all the cards after Tuesday, they will have to stand and deliver for Trump. I think they will.
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#75) I expect it will be 8 years of Pence after the 8 years of Trump, but Rand Paul is a young man, so it could very well be 8 years of Rand after 8 years of Pence. I really like Pence. I think he is an honorable man. I would vote for him. He is not my first choice though. He isn't as bold as Trump is. I doubt he will be the nominee ever.
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#74) The individual motivations, or collective motivations, of people who wrote statutes of the past does not matter. What matters is the words they wrote. Their words say no birthright citizenship unless you are subject to this jurisdiction. They said what they meant and they wrote what they manet. You're wrong. Chan is wrong. I'm rightt, Justified is right. cz82 is right. Original intent dipshit.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#77) If Trump issues the order, we’ll see Chan and I win the point. I think Trump knows that, so I doubt he’ll ever issue the order.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78) I think that Trump knows that the 14th does not give Birthright citizenship. He talked about the same thing during the campaign.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#79) Well, I hope Trump issues his order and the Supremes agree with you. But I know they won’t.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|