Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Because you don’t actually care about the constitution or the rule of law. You just care about supporting Trump.

Because I am logical. I also support redefining the 2nd amendment. IDC if it were Trump or Kasich or Clinton who proposed this. Our current immigration and path to citizenship system is not optimal IMO so I would like it modified. Doesn't make me right. It is just my opinion. Same opinion shared by the majority of first world Western nations.

But you would support redefining the 2nd amendment legally. Not through executive order. If Obama has just declared guns illegal, that wouldn’t have been right, agree?

That is up to the SC to decide. I think the 2nd Amendment is cut and dry and as I understand it the 14th amendment is more vague. I am not an attorney so I leave it to the courts to decide the legality of an EO to modify the 14th amendment meaning. As I understand it the court has never fully decided on whether the 14^th Amendment protects the children of illegal immigrants.

It’s certainly not up to SCOTUS. The law is clear. If Trump wants to change that, he needs to get the constitution amended.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 2:35:00 PM (view original):
It’s certainly not up to SCOTUS. The law is clear. If Trump wants to change that, he needs to get the constitution amended.

Yes. I think this is how he wanted it all along. He knows his EO will be challenged and end up in the SC. Which is fine. As I said, I am not an atty. Tough for me to truly opine on the language and intent of the 14th when it came to illegals.

It's not difficult and you don't have to be an attorney. We have transcripts of the debates when they wrote the 14th amendment. It was clearly designed to include every single person born here, even people born to parent ineligible for citizenship (at the time, Chinese). And that is how it has always been applied.

My take on this: Trump wasn't actually planning to do this, got caught off-guard in an interview, said he'd do it, but he never will.

At issue is the interpretation of the 14^th Amendment, which provides: 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.

The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is what the attorneys are debating and I really don't want to opine because IDK. In the past the court has ruled the way you believe but this is a different court.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 2:46:00 PM (view original):

At issue is the interpretation of the 14^th Amendment, which provides: 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.

The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is what the attorneys are debating and I really don't want to opine because IDK. In the past the court has ruled the way you believe but this is a different court.

What's the problem with that phrase?

Argument is that phrase is meant for kids born to citizens and slaves of the US not people who are illegals and subject to other countries laws. This is where the debate at the SC will be. Intent of the fouding fathers.

Wonder why rsp is the only who who keeps mentioning the "brown people" of the caravan.
Seems he is the only poster concerned about what color skin they have. The rest of us appear to have the same stance for people of all skin color. ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Argument is that phrase is meant for kids born to citizens and slaves of the US not people who are illegals and subject to other countries laws. This is where the debate at the SC will be. Intent of the fouding fathers.

What makes you think that?

The phrase applies to the children. Why would the children be subject to another country's laws?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Argument is that phrase is meant for kids born to citizens and slaves of the US not people who are illegals and subject to other countries laws. This is where the debate at the SC will be. Intent of the fouding fathers.

What makes you think that?

The phrase applies to the children. Why would the children be subject to another country's laws?

Why are you asking me? I am not an attorney. This is what I heard on the news. Can you not read? I cannot interpret the legalese of the 14th amendment as I never went to law school. This is from the late 1800s for example:

Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

https://www.lawliberty.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

Good thing SCOTUS has already ruled on this:

Supreme Court rejected claim that child born in the U.S. to foreigners was not a citizen. As CRS noted, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that "where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law."

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 2:46:00 PM (view original):

At issue is the interpretation of the 14^th Amendment, which provides: 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.

The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is what the attorneys are debating and I really don't want to opine because IDK. In the past the court has ruled the way you believe but this is a different court.

Did you miss this post? I KNOW how it ruled in the past. This is a different court.

In the past the court has ruled the way you believe but this is a different court.

SCOTUS doesn't re-examine old cases. It considers it settled law. And lower courts have to honor the ruling.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 4:23:00 PM (view original):
SCOTUS doesn't re-examine old cases. It considers it settled law. And lower courts have to honor the ruling.

Then why are the Leftists so worried about Roe v. Wade? Again I am not an attorney so this is pointless to debate with me. Find someone else.

https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases1.htm

Fine, we don't have to argue about it.

I'm still stunned that you're OK with a president using an executive order to try to amend the constitution.