President Trump

[Old Man Jingles]

Opinion | Rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment

Please copy the entire article and message me with it.
I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

 

[floridays]

So in your universe of alternative facts, a baby born in Iowa today to Mexican parents is subject to what jurisdiction?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

Did these parents in your scenario enter the country legally?

 

[floridays]

Liberals keep conveniently leaving out the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Which means the 14th didn't apply to those in the US illegally.

Until a rogue judge or liberal court gets their hands on a case they can manipulate to further their world view.

 

[floridays]

Please copy the entire article and message me with it.
I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

Will you cc the article to me Old Man?
I didn't read it for the same reason.

 

[bbsam]

Please copy the entire article and message me with it.
I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

That is the whole article

 

[bbsam]

Please copy the entire article and message me with it.
I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

If you google “14th Amendment”, it will take you to several articles. The WSJ article is among them.

Come back and let me know what you think.

 

[El Correcto]

If you google “14th Amendment”, it will take you to several articles. The WSJ article is among them.

Come back and let me know what you think.

I think you and the left have a bastardized view of basically everything. You’re wrong about gun rights, free speech, abortion, religion, economics, 14th amendment, immigration, hell you’re even confused on what a biological man is, it would be easier to name what you are right about. Yet you have the gall to lecture people about what’s best for a country you hate.

 

[Sportello]

I believe this may be considered 'fair use' for you guys who are too (or is it to?) smart for the WSJ:

Mr. Trump made a political mistake this year by not trading legal status to adult immigrants brought here illegally as children for more border security. Then Republicans could have run on an immigration accomplishment. Instead he wanted the political issue, and we’ll soon see how well that worked.


The President still stands on firm legal and political ground when he fights sanctuary cities or the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But he undermines his legal standing, and his political credibility, when he pulls a stunt like single-handedly trying to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[El Correcto]

I believe this may be considered 'fair use' for you guys who are too (or is it to?) smart for the WSJ:

Mr. Trump made a political mistake this year by not trading legal status to adult immigrants brought here illegally as children for more border security. Then Republicans could have run on an immigration accomplishment. Instead he wanted the political issue, and we’ll soon see how well that worked.


The President still stands on firm legal and political ground when he fights sanctuary cities or the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But he undermines his legal standing, and his political credibility, when he pulls a stunt like single-handedly trying to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment.

Don’t even have to “rewrite” it.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

If you google “14th Amendment”, it will take you to several articles. The WSJ article is among them.

Come back and let me know what you think.

Wonder why the link from your post only showed two paragraphs while the Google search lets one read the whole article?

Pretty much the same as what I posted.
Congress passing legislation is the best path.

 

[bbsam]

Wonder why the link from your post only showed two paragraphs while the Google search lets one read the whole article?

Pretty much the same as what I posted.
Congress passing legislation is the best path.

I doubt Congress could or would even attempt it.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I believe this may be considered 'fair use' for you guys who are too (or is it to?) smart for the WSJ:

To vs. Too.
To is a preposition with several meanings, including “toward” and “until.”
Too is an adverb that can mean “excessively” or “also.”

So I would say your usage of 'too' is the correct usage in your context.

 

[vantexan]

The same people who are encouraging Trump to issue the EO are also saying an EO is not the way to do it.
Not trying to put words in their mouths but this is what I believe they want.
Trump issues EO.
9th circuit suspends it
Goes to the SCOTUS where they issue an opinion that throws it back to the Congress.
Congress then has a mandate and motivation to consider Graham's bill.

Just My Observation

Or....The Dems win the House so the conservative SC decides in favor of the executive order rather than see it killed by the House.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I doubt Congress could or would even attempt it.

Yeah, I agree.

They haven't done their jobs in the last half-century and I see no path for them to start doing so.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Or....The Dems win the House so the conservative SC decides in favor of the executive order rather than see it killed by the House.

The Conservatives on the SCOTUS are strict constitutionalist and that would not be consistent with their beliefs.

The Liberals would do so in a second since they believe they can pass legislation from the bench.

 

[vantexan]

Anchor babies are unconstitutional and undermine our immigration laws.

The irony. The Left is willing to go to war to keep allowing poor American women to abort their babies so that they won't be burdened. And willing to go to war to let poor uneducated foreign women have their babies here so that the taxpayer will be burdened.

 

[vantexan]

The Conservatives on the SCOTUS are strict constitutionalist and that would not be consistent with their beliefs.

The Liberals would do so in a second since they believe they can pass legislation from the bench.

If the writers of the amendment said, in Congressional records, that the 14th Amendment was to specifically address the citizenship of former slaves, and not foreigners having babies here, then the strict constitutionalists would look at the intent, and rule accordingly.

 

[floridays]

I think you and the left have a bastardized view of basically everything. You’re wrong about gun rights, free speech, abortion, religion, economics, 14th amendment, immigration, hell you’re even confused on what a biological man is, it would be easier to name what you are right about. Yet you have the gall to lecture people about what’s best for a country you hate.

Damn, where the hell did that come from? I wanna go to the place where you got that from. That was excellent

 

[vantexan]

So in your universe of alternative facts, a baby born in Iowa today to Mexican parents is subject to what jurisdiction?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

His parents can get a Mexican passport, but not an American one. So who are they subject to? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

 

[floridays]

I believe this may be considered 'fair use' for you guys who are too (or is it to?) smart for the WSJ:

Mr. Trump made a political mistake this year by not trading legal status to adult immigrants brought here illegally as children for more border security. Then Republicans could have run on an immigration accomplishment. Instead he wanted the political issue, and we’ll soon see how well that worked.


The President still stands on firm legal and political ground when he fights sanctuary cities or the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But he undermines his legal standing, and his political credibility, when he pulls a stunt like single-handedly trying to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment.

Smart people prefer a whole article over Cliff's notes.
I think you have unfinished business in your Stacey Abrams fiasco.