Page 101 of 110 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1092

Thread: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

  1. #1001
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    217

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Have you ever considered that


    "proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America so that it can be considered by the Legislative Branch of the government of the United States of America and then, if acceptable to the Legislative Branch of the government of the United States of America submitting that amendment to the several states for ratification as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America"

    actually qualifies as "doing something"?.
    While it would indeed qualify as doing something, it would be more likely to at least get some attention were a great many to do the same thing at the same time.


    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    True, and then some later court could overturn that predident, rule in exactly the opposite direction, and strike down the "unconstitutional amendment" ab initio (which is legal talk for "right from its start") resulting in major lawsuits arising from "violations of constitutional rights".



    Quite right.
    That's what I was saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    I'm not so sure that the Founding Fathers would go along with "it doesn't matter what has changed in society, you have to do everything in exactly the same manner as you did it in 1780".
    Not at all what I said. Obviously the Founders expected change to occur, by process, as covered in Article V.

  2. #1002
    Sage TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    7,003

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Plus Ultra View Post
    Seems like you confuse "eminent domain" and treaties with Native American "nations". Eminent Domain is the power of a state, municipal, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use only if the government provides fair compensation to the property owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the taking be for a "public use" and mandates payment of "just compensation" to the owner. The Supreme Court has generally deferred to the government on its claims of public use, the "just compensation" is the fair market value, and this can be controversial since land claimed under eminent domain rapidly loses value. Land held by some Native American tribe would presumably not be private property if it was granted or recognized as of the Native American "nation". I'd expect such matters would need to be negotiated and probably depend on the need and purpose of the government's use of the land, what was offered (if anything) for it and specifics relating to the land itself.
    Since the American government is the actual owner of all "Indian Reservations", "just compensation" doesn't enter into the picture at all because no ACTUAL "ownership" is being transferred. All that would happen would be that the federal government would provide some "equivalent" (and the federal government gets to decide what that means) property for the USE of the "relocated" people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Plus Ultra View Post
    In the context of a border wall I'd figure the wall's "footprint" would be insignificant and whatever tribe has a reservation along the border would not have corresponding land on both sides of the border rather than just up to the boundary, so the government would just need a thin strip of reservation land along the border for this wall, but they'd also need access to this strip, and I'd expect they already have such arrangements since it is a national border and there already is some sort of barrier along most of the border.
    In real property law there is no such thing as an "insignificant" encroachment. Whole buildings have had to be demolished because they were 1" over the property line.

    While there MIGHT be an "arrangement" for the existing facilities, any change would (if the land were privately owned) require a new "arrangement".

  3. #1003
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,208

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Found this article on Wong raising an aspect of it we haven't discussed:
    But one of the points the court made illustrating its decision was that if an enemy nation succeeded in occupying any part of the United States, the children of the invading army’s soldiers would not become U.S. citizens.

    The most important point in today’s debate (the citizenship of children of illegal aliens) was never ruled on by the Wong Kim Ark decision or any later Supreme Court decision.

    There’s a critical point made by the Wong Kim Ark ruling that no one else seems to have appreciated. It’s the legal and Constitutional conclusion that the soldiers of an invading army would obviously be here against the will of the U.S., inherently without permission. They’d be, in fact, the ultimate illegal aliens. And, the court said, their children would not be American citizens.

    An invading armed force occupying a part of our country and illegal aliens coming here peacefully, but in violation of the law, are legally analogous. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch for the Supreme Court to conclude that the children of illegal aliens aren’t U.S. citizens. https://spectator.org/birthright-and...ngry-election/

  4. #1004
    Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Southlake, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,155

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    There may very well be "5 conservative justices", but there are also NINE justices who actually know what the law is and what the rules for legal/constitutional interpretation are.

    On the other hand, if you are content to be governed by a nonumverate of people who are appointed for life, I'm sure that you are well pleased with the thought that those people will feel quite at liberty to ignore the law whenever they feel like it.
    It only takes 5 to win so 4 activist judges cannot stop the original intent of the 14th as being declared law. So I'm comfortable in going with what ever they say the law says.

    Why do you think Democrats shat their pants over Kavanagh? Alone he can do nothing. Both you and I know the Constitution says nothing about Roe V Wade. They shat their pants because they knew strict constitutionalist may point out the Constitution does not cover Roe V Wade and the issue should be handled at the State level.

    An Trump may get to nominate another one yet.

  5. #1005
    Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Southlake, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,155

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Since the American government is the actual owner of all "Indian Reservations", "just compensation" doesn't enter into the picture at all because no ACTUAL "ownership" is being transferred. All that would happen would be that the federal government would provide some "equivalent" (and the federal government gets to decide what that means) property for the USE of the "relocated" people.



    In real property law there is no such thing as an "insignificant" encroachment. Whole buildings have had to be demolished because they were 1" over the property line.

    While there MIGHT be an "arrangement" for the existing facilities, any change would (if the land were privately owned) require a new "arrangement".
    The US government does not own Indian Nations.

    From Wiki

    As a result of the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, American Indian tribes are considered "domestic dependent nations" that operate as sovereign governments
    Last edited by SLC; 11-08-18 at 08:26 AM.

  6. #1006
    Sage TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    7,003

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Plus Ultra View Post
    Found this article on Wong raising an aspect of it we haven't discussed:
    Territory which has been occupied by an invading army is NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the former government of that territory.

  7. #1007
    Sage TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    7,003

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by SLC View Post
    It only takes 5 to win so 4 activist judges cannot stop the original intent of the 14th as being declared law. So I'm comfortable in going with what ever they say the law says.

    Why do you think Democrats shat their pants over Kavanagh? Alone he can do nothing. Both you and I know the Constitution says nothing about Roe V Wade. They shat their pants because they knew strict constitutionalist may point out the Constitution does not cover Roe V Wade and the issue should be handled at the State level.

    An Trump may get to nominate another one yet.
    I am quite aware of the fact that some people are very comfortable with the possibility that the actual government of the United States of America should be placed in the hands of nine people who are appointed for life - PROVIDED that those nine people (or, at least, a majority of them) are certified members of "Our Side".

    I'm not.

    You might want to take a look at the "interesting" demographics (especially education levels) for the partisan split in the American electorate.

  8. #1008
    Sage TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    7,003

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by SLC View Post
    The US government does not own Indian Nations.

    From Wiki
    You didn't happen to notice that that Worcester v. Georgia didn't actually say what you would like it to say, did you?

    Did you notice the "which the territory occupied by them was guaranteed to them by the United States" bit?

    Do you know what "guaranteed occupation" means?

    If you have a 10 year lease on your house (which gives you "guaranteed occupation"), does that mean that you, or your landlord, OWN the house?

    "Wiki" is always a good place to start, but actually reading the source documents is even better.

  9. #1009
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,208

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Territory which has been occupied by an invading army is NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the former government of that territory.
    This is true too, but what is important is how, as the article notes, despite birth in the US, the child of an invading soldier (the ultimate illegal alien) would not be a citizen.

  10. #1010
    Sage TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    7,003

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Plus Ultra View Post
    This is true too, but what is important is how, as the article notes, despite birth in the US, the child of an invading soldier (the ultimate illegal alien) would not be a citizen.
    To be eligible for "birthright" citizenship, a person must be:


    1. BORN IN the United States of America

      AND
    2. SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF the United States of America.



    You have to have BOTH (which is what the word "and" means) and invaders do NOT have the second.

    If you analogize the 14th as

    1 + 1 = 2


    then your position analogizes as

    1 = 2


    or is that too complex to understand?

    To conclude that a member of an invading army is (whilst in territory that is occupied by that invading army) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF the country invaded would be ludicrous. Members of an invading army are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF their country of origin as they are official agents of that country and acting under the direction of that country's government. [NOTE - The parallelism between the status of an "invading army" and a "diplomat" is striking, but I'm sure that the Founding Fathers didn't feel any need to spell out that "invaders" didn't qualify for citizenship - mostly because none of them were so stupid as to believe that such a position might be advanced by any rational person.]

    To draw the parallel that you wish us to draw would be as hilariously funny as if you had asked us to draw the conclusion that the German Army in WWII was SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Russia, and a lot of other countries.

    Surely you don't think that the French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Poles, and Russians controlled the Wehrmacht in WWII.

    If you do, then your education has been woefully inadequate.

    PS - Yes, I know, "War Crimes". Unfortunately those are NOT "National Offences" they are INTERNATIONAL offences and do NOT arise from the jurisdiction of any one country.
    Last edited by TU Curmudgeon; 11-08-18 at 07:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •