Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[JoeMoma]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried.

Except that it is made up. Trump said that birthright citizenship for anchor babies is not constitutionally mandated. He never said that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.

Nah he JUST argued SOME attorneys say it's not/ LOVE how he argues for attorneys! HINT: He said it WOULD be found unconstitutional in court, even though it never has! THAT'S not taking a position on it right? *shaking head*

Congratulations, you're as stupid as Rabbi. Nowhere does Trump say anything about the 14th amendment being unconstitutional. He says that birthright citizenship by anchor babies is not guaranteed by the constitution. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Which is just as ignorant, stupid, and wrong as saying the 14th Amendment is 'un-Constitutional,' and given the fact there's no such thing as an 'anchor baby.'

There is no such thing as an anchor baby? Denial is a river in Egypt.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I cannot tell how this even more makes me want Trump to be the face of the Republican Party

Hey boy.....this country was founded for White people only. Read the 1790 Naturalization Act boy. Read it boy. Publish it boy. One more time......this country was founded for White people.

Good Boy, The GOP's base speaks up. Keep it up Bubba

This representative of the GOP base speaks the truth.......boy!

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

He

I cannot tell how this even more makes me want Trump to be the face of the Republican Party

Hey boy.....this country was founded for White people only. Read the 1790 Naturalization Act boy. Read it boy. Publish it boy. One more time......this country was founded for White people.

Sadly white idiots like you give European Americans a bad name.

You are an idiot, and a racist hater. You suck.

Hey boy......fuck off......and tell Arduini too!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a 14th Amendment citizen ( not an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen) based on his parents being in the U.S. legally......not illegally.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

Likely because undocumented immigrants aren't 'citizens,' and no one maintains they are.

The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States (United States v. Wong Kim Ark), and that undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of law (Plyler v. Doe).

Consequently, citizens of the United States cannot be 'deported' because their parents might be undocumented, and those undocumented are presumed innocent of entering the country absent authorization until found guilty of that crime in a court of law; they cannot be deported without first being afforded due process.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

He was a United States citizen – so, yes.

 

[JoeMoma]

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

He was a United States citizen – so, yes.

Was the father (The Art that i was referring to) in the united states legally?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a 14th Amendment citizen ( not an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen) based on his parents being in the U.S. legally......not illegally.

That is a distinction without a difference insofar as to the post to which I was responding! And otherwise also. I see no caveats such as that in Amendment XIV. If there are cases you can cite to the contrary, list them.

 

[candycorn]

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

Translation: Yeah we all know it was ratified but Donald Trump said otherwise so we have to pretend it wasn't.

or you could just post that you don't have any idea what you're talking about but as a hyperpartisan you have a need to disparage trump and anyone who supports his america first policies.

Okay...pick a time frame...anywhere between 0.001 seconds and 100 years. I'll bet you 1,000 bucks that the 14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.

Its not going to be overturned. You guys are batshit crazy and it's entertaining watching the cognitive dissonance practiced by the right wing loons.

Just out of morbid curiosity though...why were you not bringing up the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment in the Spring? Are you that easily whooped up into a frenzy?

As PT Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every minute.

 

[candycorn]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

Gee...and whose fault was that? Let me guess...the liberal media or do you have another scape goat today?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

 

[Rotagilla]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

I think so...it's always been that way.
The colonists were patriots to us...traitors to the british...the confederacy was patriots fighting for their own country against an invasion...the south lost so now we're "traitors".

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

Translation: Yeah we all know it was ratified but Donald Trump said otherwise so we have to pretend it wasn't.

or you could just post that you don't have any idea what you're talking about but as a hyperpartisan you have a need to disparage trump and anyone who supports his america first policies.

Okay...pick a time frame...anywhere between 0.001 seconds and 100 years. I'll bet you 1,000 bucks that the 14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.

Its not going to be overturned. You guys are batshit crazy and it's entertaining watching the cognitive dissonance practiced by the right wing loons.

Just out of morbid curiosity though...why were you not bringing up the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment in the Spring? Are you that easily whooped up into a frenzy?

As PT Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every minute.

sure...sure...enjoy your partisan fantasy...

 

[JQPublic1]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...you have it right!

 

[JoeMoma]

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

In otherwords you are not going to discuss the details of the case. The answer to my question is that the parents in this case were in the united states legally. Yet this case keeps being used to justify citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrents.

 

[Little-Acorn]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations, and they are not.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, I see rabbi still hasn't corrected the lie he put in the title of this thread. Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutiojnal. rabbi even linked to the video proving it, and he STILL told the lie.

 

[JoeMoma]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations, and they are not.

What's good for an Obama President is good for a Trump President.