LiquorandGunFun said: it was to make the then slaves American citizens, it was never meant to naturalize illegals, as they are not citizens and therefor are not under the jurisdiction of the US but the country they came in illegally from. Even native americans did not qualify as they were under tribal jurisdiction. i also find it funny how now the left is concerned about the constitution all of a sudden.

Context is definitely key here.  Like you said, this was enacted due to some racist Democrats declaring that the children of slaves weren't actually citizens.  It's intent was not to create anchor babies to aid illegal aliens staying in the US. Really, if those around during Lincoln's time could look into the future to see the state of immigration today, they definitely would have written it differently.  Probably more like, "children born of naturalized citizens on US soil, are citizens of the US upon birth."  Sadly, they didn't foresee it being abused like this.

And it is pretty funny.  They'll argue blue in the face about this one needs to be enacted exactly as written, ignoring intent, but then turn around and ignore "shall not be infringed" when dealing with the 2nd Amendment.  It's just like them blasting Israel, a country full of Jews, and its prime minister and show up to take pics with Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, while claiming not to be Anti-Semitic.  Then, when Reps and Trump criticize George Soros, the largest financial backer and Anti-Capitalist on the Left, that's them hating Jews.  I guess that makes Ben Shapiro, who many on the Right like, a self-hater.  And that's not to mention that Soros denounced his religion and is has stated he is an atheist.  Or that Trump's son-in-law and daughter, converted, are Jewish.

The Dems know they can be as hypocritical as they want.  Rail against something one day, love it the next all they want.  They know the MSM will have their back in almost any situation.  Especially during an election year.  Hell, they allowed Hillary to get away with saying all black people look the same.  Even if in jest, if it was a Rep, the media would call for his head the very next hour.

NateH said: The Supreme Court has never once in American history issued a ruling on birthright citizenship. Let's see what the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue. It's long past due.

Agreed.  And technically, this wouldn't be Trump changing the Constitution.  It would be giving an EO stating that this is how the Executive branch now interprets that Amendment.  Of course, Trump and his advisors know it will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.  This will allow them to put the anchor baby interpretation up against the original intent of the Amendment, and SCOTUS will have to pick one.

anthony64641 said: I regret not voting last term (even if both candidates sucked tbh). America is becoming the laughing stock of the world more and more everyday. It will takes years to repair the damage Trump has done to the US name

46.9% of eligible voters did not vote in the last election. Many states were decided by a margin of about 10,000 votes. Our suffering continues.

LiquorandGunFun said: Machiavellian said: What are the examples where the left or even the Dems has looked for the executive office to make changes with an executive order.  It's one thing to want change, its another to allow the president to change it without due process from the other branches and the states. obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed. as far as king barack, since you brought it up. A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional. A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.” National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts. His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution. His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith. The Iran deal. Obama’s amnesty plan. His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.” His recess appointments. His refusal to deport illegal aliens. His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control His mandate over private health care records. His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women. His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding. That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws. That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans. That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods. That he can decide who faces prosecution. That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.” That he can dictate speech codes That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies. Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/#lVcco8XK37pVovec.99 there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit.

Hey, I know you don't want to do my homework for me, but where in the Constitution does the phrase "freedom of religion" appear?  Assuming Obama didn't retroactively change with with a time machine that sexually identifies as an attack helicopter. 

thismeintiel said: NateH said: The Supreme Court has never once in American history issued a ruling on birthright citizenship. Let's see what the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue. It's long past due. Agreed.  And technically, this wouldn't be Trump changing the Constitution.  It would be giving an EO stating that this is how the Executive branch now interprets that Amendment.  Of course, Trump and his advisors know it will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.  This will allow them to put the anchor baby interpretation up against the original intent of the Amendment, and SCOTUS will have to pick one.

I am curious as to how you define "ruling on birthright citizenship" in such a way as to exclude decisions such as the Wong Kim Ark decision.  Please enlighten me. 

In fact, that case perfectly illustrates, in my opinion, why the whole anchor baby argument is a red herring.  The child was a citizen and as such entitled to be here.  The parents enjoyed no such protection. 

Anyone out there who hasn't realized yet that the US elected a dictator?

Puppyroach said: Anyone out there who hasn't realized yet that the US elected a dictator?

any evidence to support that?

do you even understand what a dictator is btw?

Zucas said: Machiavellian said: This has nothing to do with balls but instead him wanting to throw some meat to his base.  If he had the balls to bring this up then he would have the balls to go through the proper channels and get Congress to bring it to a vote.  Trump working within the system and the powers of his office, negotiating and getting things done is what takes balls.   As for you doing homework for me, lol.  I have read plenty of pros and cons for what the president can do.  All of it is theory when it comes to the constitution.  Throwing Obama name into the hate means nothing to me since I didn't even vote for him.  Every time someone has an issue with the policies Trump want to do it seems people like you want to throw Hillary or Obama into the hat as if that absolves what the current administration is doing.  Out of all those links, the GOP kept praising how this is a constitution win like Obamacare funding.  If that is the case why would they want another example of the President overreach.   As I stated in my original post, yes this will probably go to the SC but my personal opinion is that it still needs proper due process. Oh you don't need to comment on anything in those posts. Nothing in there is legally sufficient or shows any understanding of how the courts interpret the Constitution. Neither the poster or the writer of those articles should be doing any homework for anyone about these issues.  As a note, this is not really about due process. Just that the type of issue that would be brought up has relatively little legal history. It's quite possible the SC wouldn't even take the case because of past court precedent. There isn't much legal scholarship suggesting that the 14th Amendment doesn't encapsulate birthright citizenship. The argument the court would possibly take on is whether or not "subject to the jurisdiction of" covers those that enter illegally. I don't think that argument has too much weight though because no one would suggest that if someone illegally entered and committed a crime, that the US wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute. TBH that statement was mainly meant to say that foreign diplomats and indigenous tribes were not covered by this. While being within the physical jurisdiction of the US, they were subject to other powers.

 

so why do you think the article was made?

Final-Fan said: LiquorandGunFun said: obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed. as far as king barack, since you brought it up. A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional. A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.” National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts. His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution. His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith. The Iran deal. Obama’s amnesty plan. His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.” His recess appointments. His refusal to deport illegal aliens. His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control His mandate over private health care records. His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women. His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding. That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws. That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans. That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods. That he can decide who faces prosecution. That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.” That he can dictate speech codes That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies. Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/#lVcco8XK37pVovec.99 there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit. Hey, I know you don't want to do my homework for me, but where in the Constitution does the phrase "freedom of religion" appear?  Assuming Obama didn't retroactively change with with a time machine that sexually identifies as an attack helicopter.

heres a link for the anti christian lawyers union. freedom of religion mean no law can constrain religion, so the opposite of freedom is? you might need to google this.

https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom

sexually identifies attack helicopter, is that supposed to be funny or something? your cynical comment shows your lack of understanding already. there will not be a middle ground or understanding here. have a nice day. 

 

LiquorandGunFun said: Final-Fan said: Hey, I know you don't want to do my homework for me, but where in the Constitution does the phrase "freedom of religion" appear?  Assuming Obama didn't retroactively change with with a time machine that sexually identifies as an attack helicopter.  heres a link for the anti christian lawyers union. freedom of religion mean no law can constrain religion, so the opposite of freedom is? you might need to google this. https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom

I'm aware of what the phrase "freedom of religion" is generally taken to mean. How do you believe using the phrase "freedom of worship" runs counter to the constitution? The amendment doesn't use the phrase "freedom of religion", so both phrases are just shorthand describing the general thrust of the amendment as regards government (non-)involvement in religious practice. But you, by linking that article, claim that Obama (and/or his administration) were trying to violate or rewrite the first amendment by using the phrase "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion". What is the basis for your claim?

Technically, you were actually claiming that "King Barack" insisted that he could literally change the language of the constitution by fiat, but I'm giving you the metaphorical meaning.

o_O.Q said: "My question, what are people thoughts on this current move by President Trump." what move? what steps has he taken to do this?

The act of making this announcement at this particular point in time and saying he will do something is a move.  Is he just giving his base red meat, does he really believe or willing to remove Birthright Citizenship with an Executive Order, is it a bluff who the hell knows but one thing for sure, the timing suggest he believes it benefit him and the GOP.