• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump proves most conservatives are frauds regarding their defense of the Constitution

SonOfDaedalus said:
So, can I have a grenade? C4? A rocket launcher? Flamethrower?



That's me burning down your argument.

I don't really believe that birthright citizenship is a good idea. But that's been the interpretation of the constitution for a couple hundred years. It's laughable to claim that suddenly we're going to "reinterpret" and parse words.

I'm glad Trump has proven what a giant fraud these Constitutional protestations have been. King Trump will now reinterpret the constitution and issue Executive Orders.
Click to expand...

I love it when someone chops off the part of my post that deals with their asinine question and then declares internet "victory".


Oh, yes, you can own a flamethrower. They aren't even covered by any of the myriad gun laws we have on the books. As far as C4, grenades and missile launchers, there are restrictions in each case but that can be done too.
 
Mycroft said:
The reason there is no outrage is because Trump has never said it.

If you think you heard him insist he can override the Constitution, please provide a quote of what you heard. Okay?
Click to expand...

 
RaleBulgarian said:
The parents intent is 100% irrelevant. Both they and their child are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. That being a fact, the child is a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

Actually, their intent is quite relevant. In the Wong decision, Gray refers to English Common Law to define "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". His quote follows - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
Click to expand...

Note this caveat - "but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom". The term "amity", as you likely know, means friendship, cooperation or goodwill. Someone here illegally [intentionally here illegally] is not acting with "amity" and that means the earlier mentioned allegiance was not mutual. That being the case, the illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and their offspring should not be considered citizens.
 
Bullseye said:
Yes there is. Which is why, for instance children born to foreign diplomats in the US DO NOT automatically become US citizens. IN fact Native Americans did not automatically become US citizens by law until 1921.
Click to expand...

Yeah foreign diplomats also don't have to pay tickets, can't be arrested for crimes yada yada. They are not under the US jurisdiction...then it makes sense for them or their kids to not to be US citizens!
Illegal immigrants in the custody of DHS, ICE or any other US agency are under US jurisdiction so they would be citizens.

Its not ****ing rocket science.

There should be a discussion on the entire state of our immigration system & policies in general but only ****ing morons want to have that discussuion while the CIC is talking about mobs, gangs, disease and sending 5000 troops to the border to join the other 5000 (national gaurd, etc) all for 1000 people in a ****ing caravan. That's how incompetent the CIC thinks the miltary is they need 10 soldiers for every 1.

Conservatives and Republicans love, love to harp on and on about slippery slopes....guess what your at the top of that slope if you start rolling down remember you started this ****!
 
Mycroft said:
I didn't hear him saying anything about "overriding the Constitution" in that video. I did hear him say that he thinks either he, through EO, or Congress, through legislation, can do what he wants.
Click to expand...

So him saying this is not saying
"If he can do DACA, we can do this by executive order"
 
Middle_Ground said:
Yeah foreign diplomats also don't have to pay tickets, can't be arrested for crimes yada yada. They are not under the US jurisdiction...then it makes sense for them or their kids to not to be US citizens!
Click to expand...
Which is why they're exempted by law. HELLO.
MG said:
Illegal immigrants in the custody of DHS, ICE or any other US agency are under US jurisdiction so they would be citizens.

Its not ****ing rocket science.
Click to expand...
And yet you're being amazingly ignorant about it.
MG said:
There should be a discussion on the entire state of our immigration system & policies in general but only ****ing morons want to have that discussuion while the CIC is talking about mobs, gangs, disease and sending 5000 troops to the border to join the other 5000 (national gaurd, etc) all for 1000 people in a ****ing caravan. That's how incompetent the CIC thinks the miltary is they need 10 soldiers for every 1.

Conservatives and Republicans love, love to harp on and on about slippery slopes....guess what your at the top of that slope if you start rolling down remember you started this ****!
Click to expand...
Funny how you slide down your own black diamond slope while blathering about righties going done slippery slopes.
 
Bullseye said:
Which is why they're exempted by law. HELLO.
And yet you're being amazingly ignorant about it.
Funny how you slide down your own black diamond slope while blathering about righties going done slippery slopes.
Click to expand...

Yup as I knew nothing but bull****!
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
All I hear from conservatives most conservatives is Constitution, Constitution, I have a pocket Constitution.

Trump insists he can override the constitution by Executive Order and nothing. No outrage.

Fine, just don't complain when the next liberal president says he will override the 2nd Amendment by Executive Order.

Why can't we all admit that our president is an authoritarian moron? He has absolutely no respect for the Constitution or laws in general.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the captainship for "Anchor Babies." The 14th Amendment forbids it. President Trump is affirming the Constitution not defying it.

In 1982 a single supreme court justice wrote a foot note on a case not even related to the 14th.

Leftist needing more voting cattle twisted that opinion and the 14th to mean that Illegal Alien Anchor Babies are US citizens.
 
Lutherf said:
Actually, their intent is quite relevant. In the Wong decision, Gray refers to English Common Law to define "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". His quote follows - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649


Note this caveat - "but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom". The term "amity", as you likely know, means friendship, cooperation or goodwill. Someone here illegally [intentionally here illegally] is not acting with "amity" and that means the earlier mentioned allegiance was not mutual. That being the case, the illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and their offspring should not be considered citizens.
Click to expand...

And as you already know, SCOTUS ruled 6 to 2 that Wong was, by birth, an American citizen.

In a 6–2 decision[111][112] issued on March 28, 1898,[113] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[114] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[115]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Bottom line, intent isn’t relevant, only place of birth.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
And as you already know, SCOTUS ruled 6 to 2 that Wong was, by birth, an American citizen.

In a 6–2 decision[111][112] issued on March 28, 1898,[113] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[114] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[115]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Bottom line, intent isn’t relevant, only place of birth.
Click to expand...

What has been made crystal clear is that conservatives and Trumpkins do not care what the Constitution may say or what precedent has been established by the Courts. They see this is the starkest of terms: they have a clear 5 to 4 majority on the Supreme Court and believe this is time to trot out a laundry list of far right wet dreams hoping that some of them get to the Court and their fellow right wingers in robes make their dreams come true.

That is what this is about pure and simple.

So called respectable Republicans knew this when they supported Trump despite their reservations and they got two Justices in return for their thirty pieces of silver.

This is a naked political power grab - make no mistake about it.
 
Casca XV said:
If you are referring to the captainship for "Anchor Babies." The 14th Amendment forbids it. President Trump is affirming the Constitution not defying it.

In 1982 a single supreme court justice wrote a foot note on a case not even related to the 14th.

Leftist needing more voting cattle twisted that opinion and the 14th to mean that Illegal Alien Anchor Babies are US citizens.
Click to expand...

Ohh...all this time the constitution has just been misinterpreted. Now we're going to reinterpret it.

Fine, let's reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so that it doesn't apply to modern weapons. President Elizabeth Warren is affirming the Constitution not defying it when she bans modern guns and allows muskets for all citizens.

If you are inside the borders of the United States and you're not a diplomat, you're under the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Ohh...all this time the constitution has just been misinterpreted. Now we're going to reinterpret it.

Fine, let's reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so that it doesn't apply to modern weapons. President Elizabeth Warren is affirming the Constitution not defying it when she bans modern guns and allows muskets for all citizens.

If you are inside the borders of the United States and you're not a diplomat, you're under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...

Saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons is like saying the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Radio, TV or the Internet.

There are transcripts of the Senators who wrote the 14th clearly explaining it doesn't apply to Aliens.
 
Not all conservatives are Trump myrmidons. Unfortunately, they are getting drowned out by those who are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom