Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:09 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,219,693 times
Reputation: 29354

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Because of the 14th amendment, why in the world would you even need to ask?

Don't use a circular argument. What is the logic for supporting that?

 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:11 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,219,693 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
The text is clear. Those who are born on US soil, are US citizens.

Paul Ryan correctly stated that it would require a Constitutional amendment to change the text.

I must have napped too long. When was Paul Ryan elected President?
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:14 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,219,693 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
Isn't the whole conservative/Republican/Constitutionalist thing that the Constitution can't be just randomly interpreted.

Basically the Constitution says what it means and means what it says...it's not up to debate for the most part.

Am I wrong?

Point me to the clause in the Constitution where it says a woman has the right to kill an unborn child.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:16 PM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,586,584 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
And what exactly do you think this means?
This means, as expressly discussed by the delegates, that people like diplomats and their families who have diplomatic immunity and Native Americans who live areas not governed by US law (one Senator remarked, "can you sue a Navajo in Court?" to illustrate) are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of US civil and criminal law and cannot be compelled to appear in US courts enforcing that law. All of the delegates agreed including Sen. Howard) to that definition at the conclusion of the debate. I quoted many of them in a prior post.

Aliens, illegal or not, are subject to US law and can be prosecuted in US courts. You can sue them. They can sue you. They have to abide by (e.g., they are "subject to") US laws, including immigration and tax laws. In that way, they are distinguished from those "not subject to US jurisdiction" like diplomats and Native Americans.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:17 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,219,693 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
Paul Ryan says Trump can't do it.

Was Paul Ryan elected President? Appointed to the federal bench? Paul Ryan has no authority.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:18 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,697 posts, read 34,555,075 times
Reputation: 29289
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
So, those that support this...do you like the precedent that some future president could come along and sign an EO proclaiming that the 2nd amendment only applies if you register to join a militia?
the second amendment has already been clarified by the SC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

the 14th, not so much.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:18 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,873,534 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
no, he will just motivate some of them to turn off Fox long enough and go out and vote. No one else even believes this nonsense, it's very much like him promising a 10% middle class tax cut would be passed while congress is in recess...and some folks just swallow the bait every time, no matter how idiotic his latest claim is.
Putting aside constitutional interpretations. Illegal aliens and their children and their open borders Democrat enablers are thieves stealing from Americans. It's egregious we have had to put up with illegal immigration and birthright citizenship for so long regardless of interpretation of the 14th.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:19 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Yet, at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, all of the Delegates agreed that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant everyone - Mongols, foreigners, aliens, and gypsies alike - provided they were in an area governed by US civil and criminal law and subject to being brought before a US court to face the application of those laws. Never once was it suggested that "jurisdiction" meant only people who had lawfully emigrated to the US. Fancy that.
No, they did not. Had they done so, THIS would not have been US Nationality Law. It would have been struck down as unconstitutional over 100 years ago. It was not...

Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States"

https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false

And I've already posted examples of Federal Government rulings from the late 1800s that those born in the US to alien parents are NOT US citizens. They're citizens of their parent's country.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:20 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,219,693 times
Reputation: 29354
Trump has played the libs like a fiddle once again. He now has them arguing for strict interpretation of the Constitution. Lol.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:21 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,371,187 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No misinformation. I posted a lengthy list of historic facts, why don't you read and learn instead of purposely remaining ignorant?

Post #83: Legal History of the 14th Amendment, and current US Nationality Law

Read TEPLimeys responses to a lot of your nonsense. Its excellently sourced. Your attempt to twist this into something it isn't is just foolish. If we allowed it the second amendment would be torn up by the next president that didn't like it.


You've picked a belief and refused to read other information that disagrees with you, I've read it. Someone is remaining purposefully ignorant, and its not me as you imply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:17 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top