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.

nope

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 9:26:00 AM (view original):

Conservative Bill Kristol:

The shrinking caravan of refugees isn't a threat to the country or the constitutional order. A president who tries to end birthright citizenship by executive order is.

Bill Kristol is a never trumper weirdo. The voters will speak on Nov. 6th.

So you agree with Trump’s idea to end birthright citizenship?

?

I do. Works in Switzerland.

So if someone is born here and they aren’t a citizen here, are they a citizen anywhere?

United States is one of only two developed countries to maintain birthright citizenship (the other is Canada). Maybe its time to change those laws? I am neither a lawmaker nor a politician but to me I don't think it makes any sense that illegals are allowed to have kids here and give them automatic citizenship. Their citizenship should be the same as their parents.

Not true. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Peru are others. Something like 30 countries have it.

DEVELOPED!! Not 3rd world where people try to flee.

Mexico is considered a developed country.

And anyway, what other countries do isn’t terribly relevant. The 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship. No self-respecting conservative would argue that an executive order should overrule a constitutional amendment.

Then why do Mexican people want to come to the US vs. staying in Mexico?

Just noticed you ignored the “this isn’t conservative” argument.

Another reminder that Trump’s base is motivated by race, not conservative principles, not the economy. Race.

untrue

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?

It was written in 1868.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 4:49:00 PM (view original):
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.

He's not amending the constitution. He's starting the discussion. Years from now it will be decided in the SC.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 4:49:00 PM (view original):
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.

I am OK with executive orders if they protect the country. Like his Muslim ban that was actually a ban from terror producing countries. Is the caravan a matter of national security? Unlikely. So he needs to change the law through Congress. I don’t think an executive order is a good idea in this case. But maybe it’s a first step in a larger plan. Idk.

Dred Scott was the reason why the 14th Amendment was ratified, which was actually on July 9th, 1868. But another reason why it was ratified is because it goes back to the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. Well, the southern states weren’t gonna accept that. So they passed laws or codes that were so restrictive to blacks that essentially made them slaves once again, and they were called the Black Codes.

So then Congress said, “Okay, you want to play that game? Then we’re gonna formally recognize former slaves as citizens which will make them subject to all the privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several states per Article 4 Section 2, Clause 1. So after that those Black Codes were abolished. That’s why we have the 14th Amendment. The guy who is considered the Founding Father to the 14th Amendment was a representative by the name of John Bingham from Ohio.

And he made some remarks about the 14th Amendment a few years later, and you can find that in House Report No. 22 dated 1871, January 30th. So it all explains how this joint committee passed the 14th Amendment. So President Trump, with all due respect to him, wouldn’t not be ending birthright citizenship because it never happened. He would be upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by DougOut on 10/30/2018 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Dred Scott was the reason why the 14th Amendment was ratified, which was actually on July 9th, 1868. But another reason why it was ratified is because it goes back to the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. Well, the southern states weren’t gonna accept that. So they passed laws or codes that were so restrictive to blacks that essentially made them slaves once again, and they were called the Black Codes.

So then Congress said, “Okay, you want to play that game? Then we’re gonna formally recognize former slaves as citizens which will make them subject to all the privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several states per Article 4 Section 2, Clause 1. So after that those Black Codes were abolished. That’s why we have the 14th Amendment. The guy who is considered the Founding Father to the 14th Amendment was a representative by the name of John Bingham from Ohio.

And he made some remarks about the 14th Amendment a few years later, and you can find that in House Report No. 22 dated 1871, January 30th. So it all explains how this joint committee passed the 14th Amendment. So President Trump, with all due respect to him, wouldn’t not be ending birthright citizenship because it never happened. He would be upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Up to the SC to decide.

There was NO immigration from 1920 to 1965. That's when the lyin' of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, brought it back. After President Johnson passed the civil rights act, the democrats needed a new underclass to keep down and dependent on the democrat party, just in case the black population was successful escaping poverty. Abortion, welfare and the takeover of Universities and the courts with white liberals made sure that would never happen. Obama wrecked the democrat party and except for his presidency, the Dems have been losing elections and power across the country for 10 years now. From local to national the Dems are the weakest they've been number wise since 1928. Thanks to FAKE NEWS you don't know that. They only report the news that makes the left look good or the Republicans look bad. If they have to, they will bury stories and ignore some news altogether. They'll even make stuff up and lie intentionally only to apologize a week or 2 later on page 17 or at 1:00 in the morning. All to no avail. The old tricks aren't working anymore. We have the internet now.

And the brown horde in the caravan are a threat

Another Liberal intent on continually making sure to include the color of the people's skin when talking about the caravan. They seem to be the only ones intent on this, yet they accuse everyone else. Just more hypocrisy and lies. Business as usual for them.

And you did the same thing by labeling him as a liberal and not just a person.

Posted by all3 on 10/31/2018 8:12:00 AM (view original):
Another Liberal intent on continually making sure to include the color of the people's skin when talking about the caravan. They seem to be the only ones intent on this, yet they accuse everyone else. Just more hypocrisy and lies. Business as usual for them.

I saw this at about 7 am and I was going to post something saying "Look out, here comes the "you're a racist" stuff.

But I decided to wait.

It took an hour and 12 minutes.

Let me give you a situation all3 and you express what you would think if it was happening. I'll present a situation and you answer a couple of direct questions. Pretend we're in a classroom discussion. I'll keep it civil and you keep it civil. Let's both not be "those guys" in this discussion. In fact, I'm going to start a new thread to address this situation.

Please check it out and we'll go from there.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2018 4:49:00 PM (view original):
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.

I am OK with executive orders if they protect the country. Like his Muslim ban that was actually a ban from terror producing countries. Is the caravan a matter of national security? Unlikely. So he needs to change the law through Congress. I don’t think an executive order is a good idea in this case. But maybe it’s a first step in a larger plan. Idk.

It's just moreof: dumb **** Trump has said because he doesn't understand the job.

I just wish we could see what he says when he testifies to a grand jury under a Mueller subpoena.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/30/2018 2:33:00 PM (view original):

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.

The 2nd amendment is hardly cut and dry. People have been arguing over the meaning of well regulated militia forever.