Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[bodecea]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

SCOTUS Baby! Hang on to your pussyhat.

"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."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

Illegals are not "subject to..." ask your lawyer friend. Besides, Trump has the pen and phone Obama left behind

Oh? Illegals are not subject to our laws while in our country?

 

[bodecea]

They were stupid enough to vote for him
They believe anything he rants about

No. We were smart enough to vote for him.

You were dumb enough to vote for Hitlery.

I for one sure hope he can change the 14th and get rid of the anchor babies.

You voted for a Birther
Doesn’t get dumber than that

Nope. I voted for a man who knows what he is doing.

You voted for an old hag who thinks of no one but herself.

You couldn't have been any dumber.

No self- hating female stuff here.

No there isn't unless of course you subscribe to the asinine hypothesis that any female criticizing another female is indicative of self hatred.

Criticizing is one thing....using misogynist name-calling language is quite another.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a baby born to an ILLEGAL has standing. In 1898 they ruled that legal immigrants children become American citizens at birth.

Certainly a ploy by Trump to force the Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

As it is, I am convinced that the 14th Amendment did not protect illegals on the question of birthright.

Mark

That's the question. But if Trump's ploy was just about forcing the SC to rule, he didn't have to wait until a week before an election while declaring we are being invaded by a caravan 1000 miles away from our border. LOL

What practical purpose does it serve to allow someone to sneak across the border illegally and have a baby, and that baby is an American citizen?

Why?

There's no law saying we can't deport those people. Or even make it very uneconomic to hire them. So, your question is not really the question.

If you are asking whether the drafters and those who ratified the 14th could have anticipated 8-10 million people illegally working in the US .. no they probably didn't think our congress and society would be so dysfunctional so as to somehow need that many workers who'd work for less than citizens get.

But the 13th made legally owning slaves impossible. The 14th made it impossible to create a caste system of non-citizen workers. The result was Ark's case. We could not legally import some number of non-citizen workers and deny their children citizenship. And as a result the South created Jim Crow, whereby negroes could be kept in a location by use of force and given the choice of working cheaply or dying. The two black migrations and civil rights laws ended that.

it is interesting how we won't enforce certain laws, but we won't change them either.

 

[Auld Phart]

You are OK with a dictator retaining the responsibilities of Congress, and with the stroke of a single pen.

were you?

 

[joaquinmiller]

It's propaganda to fire up the bigots before the mid-terms.

Isn't that what your side is doing by calling Trump a dictator over this?

I haven't called him a dictator, but I have to admit, if he can change the Constitution at a whim, or has the absolute authority to pardon himself - as he has claimed -then maybe 'dictator-wannabe' is the right term.

Equally to the point, Trump is the actor here - if he doesn't start this bullshit, there is no controversy. He wants the controversy, while you want to pretend it's 50/50.

Dictator was in the title of one of the three threads I merged.

and is he any more of a dictator than the person making this statement?

View attachment 225719


Please note the second sentence: "Where I can act on my own without Congress, I'm gong to do so"

"Where I can" acknowledges limits, so there is nothing dictatorial about that statement.

Is there any way in hell a Trumpkin can address any topic without some faux fucking equivalence? I don't care which threads you merged, this one is about a supposed upcoming effort by Trump. Obama has nothing to do with it.

 

[bodecea]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

SCOTUS Baby! Hang on to your pussyhat.

"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."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

Its been explained already. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Mark

So, they cannot be arrested if they commit a crime?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

This is what puzzles me to no end about what they are saying.

 

[caddo kid]

You are OK with a dictator retaining the responsibilities of Congress, and with the stroke of a single pen.

were you?

View attachment 225721

So, You are OK with The Second Amendment being taken with the stroke of a pen via a POTUS EO. Thanks for playing.

And not a single one of you brain dead jackoffs have cited ONE EXAMPLE of ANY POTUS performing an EO to repeal a single Constitutional Amendment.

But go ahead and cite it, right here. I'm ready to learn something.

 

[bodecea]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

There

And? Are you saying that illegals are not required to follow our laws while in our country? (That's what jurisdiction means, btw)

 

[ColonelAngus]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

There

And? Are you saying that illegals are not required to follow our laws while in our country? (That's what jurisdiction means, btw)

They already broke the law when they entered illegally. It's a felony.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I doubt he can. Even if it did, any subsequent president can void that order with another one and possibly make it retroactive.

The best outcome would be for someone to sue to overturn the order and throw the matter before the Supreme Court. That would settle the matter once and for all.

Agreed! This matter has never been properly settled and the entire concept of birthright citizenship, where any woman who can crawl under a fence and drop her child on this side of the border, wins the citizenship jackpot, is a false one spouted by lying leftists. Is there any other kind? No.

For those who can read and think> No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a baby born to an ILLEGAL has standing. In 1898 they ruled that legal immigrants children become American citizens at birth.

Certainly a ploy by Trump to force the Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

As it is, I am convinced that the 14th Amendment did not protect illegals on the question of birthright.

Mark

That's the question. But if Trump's ploy was just about forcing the SC to rule, he didn't have to wait until a week before an election while declaring we are being invaded by a caravan 1000 miles away from our border. LOL

What practical purpose does it serve to allow someone to sneak across the border illegally and have a baby, and that baby is an American citizen?

Why?

There's no law saying we can't deport those people. Or even make it very uneconomic to hire them. So, your question is not really the question.

If you are asking whether the drafters and those who ratified the 14th could have anticipated 8-10 million people illegally working in the US .. no they probably didn't think our congress and society would be so dysfunctional so as to somehow need that many workers who'd work for less than citizens get.

But the 13th made legally owning slaves impossible. The 14th made it impossible to create a caste system of non-citizen workers. The result was Ark's case. We could not legally import some number of non-citizen workers and deny their children citizenship. And as a result the South created Jim Crow, whereby negroes could be kept in a location by use of force and given the choice of working cheaply or dying. The two black migrations and civil rights laws ended that.

it is interesting how we won't enforce certain laws, but we won't change them either.

Go ahead and change the Constitution...the pathway to change is available.

 

[Auld Phart]

It's propaganda to fire up the bigots before the mid-terms.

Isn't that what your side is doing by calling Trump a dictator over this?

I haven't called him a dictator, but I have to admit, if he can change the Constitution at a whim, or has the absolute authority to pardon himself - as he has claimed -then maybe 'dictator-wannabe' is the right term.

Equally to the point, Trump is the actor here - if he doesn't start this bullshit, there is no controversy. He wants the controversy, while you want to pretend it's 50/50.

Dictator was in the title of one of the three threads I merged.

and is he any more of a dictator than the person making this statement?

View attachment 225719


Please note the second sentence: "Where I can act on my own without Congress, I'm gong to do so"

"Where I can" acknowledges limits, so there is nothing dictatorial about that statement.

Is there any way in hell a Trumpkin can address any topic without some faux fucking equivalence? I don't care which threads you merged, this one is about a supposed upcoming effort by Trump. Obama has nothing to do with it.

"Where I can" acknowledges limits, so there is nothing dictatorial about that statement.

you can't be serious

I don't care which threads you merged, this one is about a supposed upcoming effort by Trump.

all three of them were, that was the reason for the merge.

Obama has nothing to do with it.

Other than the fact he stated he was all for it, long before Trump threw his hat in the ring

 

[bodecea]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

There

And? Are you saying that illegals are not required to follow our laws while in our country? (That's what jurisdiction means, btw)

They already broke the law when they entered illegally. It's a felony.

True....but you just proved they are under our jurisdiction if they are breaking OUR laws. You can't have it both ways you know.

 

[jon_berzerk]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

There

And? Are you saying that illegals are not required to follow our laws while in our country? (That's what jurisdiction means, btw)

do they follow the law

explain fake and stolen identities and stolen ss numbers

they use to get by in the United States

 

[joaquinmiller]

You are OK with a dictator retaining the responsibilities of Congress, and with the stroke of a single pen.

were you?

View attachment 225721

So, You are OK with The Second Amendment being taken with the stroke of a pen. Thanks for playing.

Not taken, just changed - Trump could say, "You have to be in a well-regulated militia, in the service of the state, to have a gun."

 

[NightFox]

No. We were smart enough to vote for him.

You were dumb enough to vote for Hitlery.

I for one sure hope he can change the 14th and get rid of the anchor babies.

You voted for a Birther
Doesn’t get dumber than that

Nope. I voted for a man who knows what he is doing.

You voted for an old hag who thinks of no one but herself.

You couldn't have been any dumber.

No self- hating female stuff here.

No there isn't unless of course you subscribe to the asinine hypothesis that any female criticizing another female is indicative of self hatred.

Criticizing is one thing....using misogynist name-calling language is quite another.

Nope, same shit, the only difference is the subjective nouns and adjectives you folks like to randomly interject about others in an attempt to rationalize your own viewpoints to yourselves.

My guess is that making others out to be <fill in the blank>ists makes it easier for you to overlook your own shortcomings.

 

[Moonglow]

This BS isn't even in the COnstution we do not have to accept anyone as being a gawd dam citizen just because they can have a kid.

You can watch them in walmart with EBT cards,.

This is what the DEMOTWATS do when they can't win they replace the population,

Tards are to low in the fkn normal chart to understand this all.

They wave their flag while approaching our country screw you ......

The key to the situation is Congress, yet they have not done what is necessary.

 

[joaquinmiller]

It's propaganda to fire up the bigots before the mid-terms.

Isn't that what your side is doing by calling Trump a dictator over this?

I haven't called him a dictator, but I have to admit, if he can change the Constitution at a whim, or has the absolute authority to pardon himself - as he has claimed -then maybe 'dictator-wannabe' is the right term.

Equally to the point, Trump is the actor here - if he doesn't start this bullshit, there is no controversy. He wants the controversy, while you want to pretend it's 50/50.

Dictator was in the title of one of the three threads I merged.

and is he any more of a dictator than the person making this statement?

View attachment 225719


Please note the second sentence: "Where I can act on my own without Congress, I'm gong to do so"

"Where I can" acknowledges limits, so there is nothing dictatorial about that statement.

Is there any way in hell a Trumpkin can address any topic without some faux fucking equivalence? I don't care which threads you merged, this one is about a supposed upcoming effort by Trump. Obama has nothing to do with it.

"Where I can" acknowledges limits, so there is nothing dictatorial about that statement.

you can't be serious

I don't care which threads you merged, this one is about a supposed upcoming effort by Trump.

all three of them were, that was the reason for the merge.

Obama has nothing to do with it.

Other than the fact he stated he was all for it, long before Trump threw his hat in the ring

That's just stupid.

 

[bodecea]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

There

And? Are you saying that illegals are not required to follow our laws while in our country? (That's what jurisdiction means, btw)

do they follow the law

explain fake and stolen identities and stolen ss numbers

they use to get by in the United States

Yes....and that is ILLEGAL. Right? Which means they are under our jurisdiction if they are to be held accountable for it.

But their children born here? Are they held accountable too? Do we ignore the very plain language of the 14th Amendment?

 

[caddo kid]

You are OK with a dictator retaining the responsibilities of Congress, and with the stroke of a single pen.

were you?

View attachment 225721

So, You are OK with The Second Amendment being taken with the stroke of a pen. Thanks for playing.

Not taken, just changed - Trump could say, "You have to be in a well-regulated militia, in the service of the state, to have a gun."

TRY GOING BACK & READ MY POST #51


The headline could read something like this:

POTUS Clinton Inaugurated: First Order of Business is EO to REPEAL 2nd Amendment