User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 8:42:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ding Ding Ding......winner winner chicken dinner. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Given the last session of the court, it's clear to me that there is no logic to our laws. That abortion is a super-duper right not to be questioned or regulated by the states or fed in theory or in practice...unquestioned by the egg heads and "law experts". But the 2nd amendment's clear language notwithstanding, every jurisdiction is a-OK with all manner of infringement procedures, license and tax requirements. If getting an abortion was as difficult as buying a gun, we'd have a lot less abortions. The background check alone would nail statutory rapists. That Obamacare can be re-written by the court and shoehorned ex post facto into "law" means there is no rational basis for our laws. The rest is just shouting and waving hands. If SCOTUS wanted to declare Christians non-persons they could. They declared blacks to be 3/5 the value of people but otherwise non-persons (  ) seriously - how convoluted must you be to declare blacks "non-persons, mere possessions" but then count them as 3/5 the value of people for the sake of political representation? It's not logic we're getting from courts but negotiated compromise via another mechanism. When it's convenient to tax everyone in the country we'll nationalize people for just crossing the frontier. Ding Ding Ding......winner winner chicken dinner.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 9:11:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To run that one again you'd have to "federalize/militarize" the local police with federal enforcement authority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
On the other hand, there are no (or few, easily fixed) legal impediments to essentially re-running "Operation Wetback" like we did in the 1950s. Round up the illegals and ship the back. If they have babies born here, we won't even get into whether they're citizens - take them with you or not. I'm guessing most will. Everytime somebody says it cant be done, I send them to go google this. Yup. They might want to give it a more PC name than that, but it most certainly can be done. To run that one again you'd have to "federalize/militarize" the local police with federal enforcement authority. -implement e-verify -$1000 fine for hiring an illegal ;$500 reward for reporting some one employing an illegal -every 6 months for fine and reward doubles -fine and reward can be collected by any law enforcment agency in he US, federal, local, or state eventually the reward becomes to much to resist, and the potential fine to great to ignore, and the state and local law enforcement will be fighting who gets to arrest the illegals at $1000s of dollars each. once the jobs are gone, they will leave Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 9:42:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
once the jobs are gone, they will leave There it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 9:47:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There it is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: once the jobs are gone, they will leave There it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 9:51:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. And slash benefits to the FSA. Flat tax and no deductions, no earned income tax credit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
once the jobs are gone, they will leave There it is. Absolutely. (Or some tax plan like that.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 10:01:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Absolutely. (Or some tax plan like that.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: once the jobs are gone, they will leave There it is. Absolutely. (Or some tax plan like that.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 10:21:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Love the Ann Coulter is batshit crazy dodge. Ann makes basically six arguments: 1.Original Intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment: “Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. 2.Original intent of the 14th was followed in 1884 Wilken v Elk SCOTUS decision. John Elk, went before the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. He lost. SCOTUS the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. ‘The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,’ the court explained -- and not for the first or last time – ‘was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.’” We all know that American Indians were not made citizens until the 1924 The Indian Citizenship Act. Therefore: 3.Why were people born on American soil up until 1924 not American citizens? 4.In the 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. We can all agree that there is a difference between legal and illegal. 5. “…..Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that: “Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the 'courts have stumbled on the subject,' it would be prudent to remove the 'doubt thrown over' it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen's right of citizenship because of birth." 6.As the Supreme Court said in Elk: "[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." That ladies in gentleman is stare decises. I'll be patiently waiting for the refutation for each question and comment listed above. edited for formatting. John Elk was born on a reservation. Not considered at the time U.S. soil. A sovereign nation within a nation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 11:27:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: John Elk was born on a reservation. Not considered at the time U.S. soil. A sovereign nation within a nation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Love the Ann Coulter is batshit crazy dodge. Ann makes basically six arguments: 1.Original Intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment: "Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. 2.Original intent of the 14th was followed in 1884 Wilken v Elk SCOTUS decision. John Elk, went before the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. He lost. SCOTUS the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. ‘The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,’ the court explained -- and not for the first or last time – ‘was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.’” We all know that American Indians were not made citizens until the 1924 The Indian Citizenship Act. Therefore: 3.Why were people born on American soil up until 1924 not American citizens? 4.In the 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. We can all agree that there is a difference between legal and illegal. 5. "…..Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that: "Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the 'courts have stumbled on the subject,' it would be prudent to remove the 'doubt thrown over' it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen's right of citizenship because of birth." 6.As the Supreme Court said in Elk: "[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." That ladies in gentleman is stare decises. I'll be patiently waiting for the refutation for each question and comment listed above. edited for formatting. John Elk was born on a reservation. Not considered at the time U.S. soil. A sovereign nation within a nation. He originally owed allegiance to,the tribe. He left and was living among whites. Tried to register to vote. Btw, nothing stops illegals from voting now |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 11:49:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jurisdiction thereof He originally owed allegiance to,the tribe. He left and was living among whites. Tried to register to vote. Btw, nothing stops illegals from voting now Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Love the Ann Coulter is batshit crazy dodge. Ann makes basically six arguments: 1.Original Intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment: "Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. 2.Original intent of the 14th was followed in 1884 Wilken v Elk SCOTUS decision. John Elk, went before the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. He lost. SCOTUS the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. ‘The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,’ the court explained -- and not for the first or last time – ‘was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.’” We all know that American Indians were not made citizens until the 1924 The Indian Citizenship Act. Therefore: 3.Why were people born on American soil up until 1924 not American citizens? 4.In the 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. We can all agree that there is a difference between legal and illegal. 5. "…..Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that: "Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the 'courts have stumbled on the subject,' it would be prudent to remove the 'doubt thrown over' it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen's right of citizenship because of birth." 6.As the Supreme Court said in Elk: "[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." That ladies in gentleman is stare decises. I'll be patiently waiting for the refutation for each question and comment listed above. edited for formatting. John Elk was born on a reservation. Not considered at the time U.S. soil. A sovereign nation within a nation. He originally owed allegiance to,the tribe. He left and was living among whites. Tried to register to vote. Btw, nothing stops illegals from voting now Naturalization is not the same as birthright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 11:51:37 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. And slash benefits to the FSA. Flat tax and no deductions, no earned income tax credit. I don't care for a flat tax. How about this solution instead: repeal the 16th amendment, dissolve the Income tax, and disband the Internal Revenue Service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 12:32:55 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would tell the parent(s) of anchor babies that they were leaving and could take the babies with them or not, as they chose. That's what I used to tell them, before we were releasing them all under Jeh's edicts. I never thought I'd miss Janet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 8:33:35 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't care for a flat tax. How about this solution instead: repeal the 16th amendment, dissolve the Income tax, and disband the Internal Revenue Service. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yep. And slash benefits to the FSA. Flat tax and no deductions, no earned income tax credit. I don't care for a flat tax. How about this solution instead: repeal the 16th amendment, dissolve the Income tax, and disband the Internal Revenue Service. I've got no problem with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 8:37:47 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I used to tell them, before we were releasing them all under Jeh's edicts. I never thought I'd miss Janet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I would tell the parent(s) of anchor babies that they were leaving and could take the babies with them or not, as they chose. That's what I used to tell them, before we were releasing them all under Jeh's edicts. I never thought I'd miss Janet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:23:11 AM EDT
[#14]
Haters fixate on some weird shit to dislike Miss Anne and totally sail over the fact that she knows what she is talking about.
Has our self-admitted "Tier 1" lawyer commented on how much scorn was heaped upon the Ark decision by lawyers at the time? Maybe our "Tier 1" lawyer should compare his lawyer credentials with Miss Anne's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:39:48 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Her criticism of the Wong case is quite weak. She seems to think that we should rely on Roman law and not English common law to inform our understanding, then flippantly refers to it as "feudal" law. This of course is preposterous. We have a long and consistent history of relying on English legal roots to interpret our own laws. I wonder if she'd say the same thing about the discussion of Anglo-American jurisprudence in other cases, like the ones a few years ago that held the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Over turning it seems to be her weak point because it has been adhered to for 117 years. But, it pertained to legal residents............if Congress passed a law saying illegal immigrants do not fall into that category, do you think the SCOTUS would say that is not ok just because of Wong, supra? ETA: And Congress could say "from this day forward this new law applies............." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:41:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since I've never posted a video, it seems you know nothing of this subject either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ann Coulter went to a Tier 1 law school. She's also batshit and has an agenda to pander, whereas I went to a Tier 1 law school and am not batshit, and at least have less of an agenda. Ann is not crazy. Reading many of your posts casts doubt on your second statement. You should stick to shooting milk jugs and posting videos. Since I've never posted a video, it seems you know nothing of this subject either. Ohhhhh that's going to leave a mark 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:47:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Haters fixate on some weird shit to dislike Miss Anne and totally sail over the fact that she knows what she is talking about. Has our self-admitted "Tier 1" lawyer commented on how much scorn was heaped upon the Ark decision by lawyers at the time? Maybe our "Tier 1" lawyer should compare his lawyer credentials with Miss Anne's? Says the guy who can't even spell her name right. 
Nobody liked the decision at the time because there was a strong anti-Chinese sentiment. So people, including people like Ann Coulter, invented reasons to hate it. I went to a top tier law school, was a law review editor, and clerked at an appellate court - just like Ann. My credentials compare pretty well. I'm just not a skinny blond chick who rants on TV so of course I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:49:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Over turning it seems to be her weak point because it has been adhered to for 117 years. But, it pertained to legal residents............if Congress passed a law saying illegal immigrants do not fall into that category, do you think the SCOTUS would say that is not ok just because of Wong, supra? ETA: And Congress could say "from this day forward this new law applies............." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Her criticism of the Wong case is quite weak. She seems to think that we should rely on Roman law and not English common law to inform our understanding, then flippantly refers to it as "feudal" law. This of course is preposterous. We have a long and consistent history of relying on English legal roots to interpret our own laws. I wonder if she'd say the same thing about the discussion of Anglo-American jurisprudence in other cases, like the ones a few years ago that held the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Over turning it seems to be her weak point because it has been adhered to for 117 years. But, it pertained to legal residents............if Congress passed a law saying illegal immigrants do not fall into that category, do you think the SCOTUS would say that is not ok just because of Wong, supra? ETA: And Congress could say "from this day forward this new law applies............." Nothing in the case distinguishes between legal versus illegal aliens. The question presented and answered by the decision, by its plain language, applies to ALL aliens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:52:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.......... Nothing in the case distinguishes between legal versus illegal aliens. The question presented and answered by the decision, by its plain language, applies to ALL aliens. I understand that but Congress's new hypothetical law would distinguish between those two statuses. If that issue has never come up before, why couldn't there be a decent possibility that the SCOTUS would look at it as a "new" issue that has to be addressed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:53:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since I've never posted a video, it seems you know nothing of this subject either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ann Coulter went to a Tier 1 law school. She's also batshit and has an agenda to pander, whereas I went to a Tier 1 law school and am not batshit, and at least have less of an agenda. Ann is not crazy. Reading many of your posts casts doubt on your second statement. You should stick to shooting milk jugs and posting videos. Since I've never posted a video, it seems you know nothing of this subject either. Purse fight next on the handbag of truth! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:54:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand that but Congress's new hypothetical law would distinguish between those two statuses. If that issue has never come up before, why couldn't there be a decent possibility that the SCOTUS would look at it as a "new" issue that has to be addressed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.......... Nothing in the case distinguishes between legal versus illegal aliens. The question presented and answered by the decision, by its plain language, applies to ALL aliens. I understand that but Congress's new hypothetical law would distinguish between those two statuses. If that issue has never come up before, why couldn't there be a decent possibility that the SCOTUS would look at it as a "new" issue that has to be addressed? How does Congress pass a law in contravention of the 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause ring a bell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:56:57 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... How does Congress pass a law in contravention of the 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause ring a bell? What do you mean? They would say that this new law applies to only illegal immigrants and is being passed in order to differentiate between legal residents and illegal residents. Then the SCOTUS would have to say if that is a violation of the 14A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:00:45 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean? They would say that this new law applies to only illegal immigrants and is being passed in order to differentiate between legal residents and illegal residents. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............... How does Congress pass a law in contravention of the 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause ring a bell? What do you mean? They would say that this new law applies to only illegal immigrants and is being passed in order to differentiate between legal residents and illegal residents. Explain exactly what your hypothetical law would do. Because if it eliminates jus soli citizenship, it's going to run right into the enormous, multiple walls I've already described. More importantly, it's not going to do anything to stop illegals from continuing to migrate here nor remove the milions we already have here. Which is why I keep trying to explain that people are wasting energy on the losing fight about birthright citizenship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:02:00 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does Congress pass a law in contravention of the 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause ring a bell? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......... Nothing in the case distinguishes between legal versus illegal aliens. The question presented and answered by the decision, by its plain language, applies to ALL aliens. I understand that but Congress's new hypothetical law would distinguish between those two statuses. If that issue has never come up before, why couldn't there be a decent possibility that the SCOTUS would look at it as a "new" issue that has to be addressed? How does Congress pass a law in contravention of the 14th Amendment? Supremacy Clause ring a bell? Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:04:12 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................. Explain exactly what your hypothetical law would do. Because if it eliminates jus soli citizenship, it's going to run right into the enormous, multiple walls I've already described. More importantly, it's not going to do anything to stop illegals from continuing to migrate here nor remove the milions we already have here. Which is why I keep trying to explain that people are wasting energy on the losing fight about birthright citizenship. It would say you can't become a citizen if born of illegal aliens. I believe this is a scam that does bring many to America................or maybe that is a ruse I have fallen for from what I have heard about anchor babies? I have heard that allows them to bring in their parents...........who have to take care of them, relatives who say they are dependent on the parents for support.........blah, blah...............blah. Is all of this just a ruse to make me dislike the so called "scam" of anchor babies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:06:48 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would say you can't become a citizen if born of illegal aliens. I believe this is a scam that does bring many to America................or maybe that is a ruse I have fallen for from what I have heard about anchor babies? I have heard that allows them to bring in their parents...........who have to take care of them, relatives who say they are dependent on the parents for support.........blah, blah...............blah. Is all of this just a ruse to make me dislike the so called "scam" of anchor babies? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ................. Explain exactly what your hypothetical law would do. Because if it eliminates jus soli citizenship, it's going to run right into the enormous, multiple walls I've already described. More importantly, it's not going to do anything to stop illegals from continuing to migrate here nor remove the milions we already have here. Which is why I keep trying to explain that people are wasting energy on the losing fight about birthright citizenship. It would say you can't become a citizen if born of illegal aliens. I believe this is a scam that does bring many to America................or maybe that is a ruse I have fallen for from what I have heard about anchor babies? I have heard that allows them to bring in their parents...........who have to take care of them, relatives who say they are dependent on the parents for support.........blah, blah...............blah. Is all of this just a ruse to make me dislike the so called "scam" of anchor babies? ETA. They are also a bunch of liars People who aren't even related will get phony documents and lie for,each other to get in |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:06:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would say you can't become a citizen if born of illegal aliens. I believe this is a scam that does bring many to America................or maybe that is a ruse I have fallen for from what I have heard about anchor babies? I have heard that allows them to bring in their parents...........who have to take care of them, relatives who say they are dependent on the parents for support.........blah, blah...............blah. Is all of this just a ruse to make me dislike the so called "scam" of anchor babies? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................. Explain exactly what your hypothetical law would do. Because if it eliminates jus soli citizenship, it's going to run right into the enormous, multiple walls I've already described. More importantly, it's not going to do anything to stop illegals from continuing to migrate here nor remove the milions we already have here. Which is why I keep trying to explain that people are wasting energy on the losing fight about birthright citizenship. It would say you can't become a citizen if born of illegal aliens. I believe this is a scam that does bring many to America................or maybe that is a ruse I have fallen for from what I have heard about anchor babies? I have heard that allows them to bring in their parents...........who have to take care of them, relatives who say they are dependent on the parents for support.........blah, blah...............blah. Is all of this just a ruse to make me dislike the so called "scam" of anchor babies? Wholesale elimination of birthright citizenship is a pipe dream regardless of how much you dislike its implications. The part I underlined CAN be changed. It's a function of immigration rules, which of course Congress can change whenever it wants to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:09:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................... Wholesale elimination of birthright citizenship is a pipe dream regardless of how much you dislike its implications. The part I underlined CAN be changed. It's a function of immigration rules, which of course Congress can change whenever it wants to. Ah.........I see what you are saying now.........attack it from that stand point. That is a good point. But, only to argue, aren't rights enumerated in BOR Amendments "tweaked" and decided now and then? For example, in Heller, the SCOTUS said there can be restrictions on owning firearms even though the 2A is an individual right to guard against tyranny and lawlessness? So I am not so sure the 14A couldn't have a "qualifier" type of law to keep from it applying to everyone carte blanche? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:10:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. It's true. ETA. They are also a bunch of liars People who aren't even related will get phony documents and lie for,each other to get in Immediate family members of U.S. citizens are pretty much entitled to receive LPR ("green card") status if they apply. But that can be changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:16:55 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah.........I see what you are saying now.........attack it from that stand point. That is a good point. But, only to argue, aren't rights enumerated in BOR Amendments "tweaked" and decided now and then? For example, in Heller, the SCOTUS said there can be restrictions on owning firearms even though the 2A is an individual right to guard against tyranny and lawlessness? So I am not so sure the 14A couldn't have a "qualifier" type of law to keep from it applying to everyone carte blanche? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................... Wholesale elimination of birthright citizenship is a pipe dream regardless of how much you dislike its implications. The part I underlined CAN be changed. It's a function of immigration rules, which of course Congress can change whenever it wants to. Ah.........I see what you are saying now.........attack it from that stand point. That is a good point. But, only to argue, aren't rights enumerated in BOR Amendments "tweaked" and decided now and then? For example, in Heller, the SCOTUS said there can be restrictions on owning firearms even though the 2A is an individual right to guard against tyranny and lawlessness? So I am not so sure the 14A couldn't have a "qualifier" type of law to keep from it applying to everyone carte blanche? And against the current of the Wong case, 400+ years of common law that makes no distinction amongst categories of aliens, and the politics of the current Court - you think that's going to happen? I've got a whole collection of bridges to sell you if you do. Also, think hard about what you said there about a "qualifier" law to keep a constitutional amendment from applying to everyone, and be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:19:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ And against the current of the Wong case, 400+ years of common law that makes no distinction amongst categories of aliens, and the politics of the current Court - you think that's going to happen? I've got a whole collection of bridges to sell you if you do. Also, think hard about what you said there about a "qualifier" law to keep a constitutional amendment from applying to everyone, and be careful what you wish for. The part in red is the problem..................and it makes your point about 400+ years of common law an irrelevant point. It would obviously be a 5-4 decision depending on how Kennedy went would decide who won IMHO. You say not worth it and it might go 9-0 I assume..........I say, not so sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:20:45 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And against the current of the Wong case, 400+ years of common law that makes no distinction amongst categories of aliens, and the politics of the current Court - you think that's going to happen? I've got a whole collection of bridges to sell you if you do. Also, think hard about what you said there about a "qualifier" law to keep a constitutional amendment from applying to everyone, and be careful what you wish for. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ................... Wholesale elimination of birthright citizenship is a pipe dream regardless of how much you dislike its implications. The part I underlined CAN be changed. It's a function of immigration rules, which of course Congress can change whenever it wants to. Ah.........I see what you are saying now.........attack it from that stand point. That is a good point. But, only to argue, aren't rights enumerated in BOR Amendments "tweaked" and decided now and then? For example, in Heller, the SCOTUS said there can be restrictions on owning firearms even though the 2A is an individual right to guard against tyranny and lawlessness? So I am not so sure the 14A couldn't have a "qualifier" type of law to keep from it applying to everyone carte blanche? And against the current of the Wong case, 400+ years of common law that makes no distinction amongst categories of aliens, and the politics of the current Court - you think that's going to happen? I've got a whole collection of bridges to sell you if you do. Also, think hard about what you said there about a "qualifier" law to keep a constitutional amendment from applying to everyone, and be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:21:44 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ And against the current of the Wong case, 400+ years of common law that makes no distinction amongst categories of aliens, and the politics of the current Court - you think that's going to happen? I've got a whole collection of bridges to sell you if you do. Also, think hard about what you said there about a "qualifier" law to keep a constitutional amendment from applying to everyone, and be careful what you wish for. The part in red is the problem..................and it makes your point about 400+ years of common law an irrelevant point. It would obviously be a 5-4 decision depending on how Kennedy went would decide who won IMHO. You say not worth it and it might go 9-0, (I assume)..........I say, not so sure because coming over the border for the expressed purpose to have a baby and your entire immediate family to become legal residents of the country your anchor baby is now a citizen of has never been the reason the 14A was enacted or considered, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:27:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would obviously be a 5-4 decision depending on how Kennedy went would decide who won IMHO. I'm not so sure it would be that close. There are competing forces that would pull the conservatives in both directions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:28:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ann is not crazy. Reading many of your posts casts doubt on your second statement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ann Coulter went to a Tier 1 law school. She's also batshit and has an agenda to pander, whereas I went to a Tier 1 law school and am not batshit, and at least have less of an agenda. Ann is not crazy. Reading many of your posts casts doubt on your second statement. Ouch |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:28:58 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not so sure it would be that close. There are competing forces that would pull the conservatives in both directions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would obviously be a 5-4 decision depending on how Kennedy went would decide who won IMHO. I'm not so sure it would be that close. There are competing forces that would pull the conservatives in both directions. That's why I thought you might think it went 9-0. I am not so sure you are right about this one but your idea about attacking it from other "areas" is a good one and might be the best way. Maybe try both ways? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:43:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Legal advice from Coulter?
She's an idiot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 10:53:55 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legal advice from Coulter?
She's an idiot. Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 11:00:11 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Legal advice from Coulter?
She's an idiot. Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. Off topic but curious...................do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg is batshit crazy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 11:41:08 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, that says alot. Obama admin is a new low. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would tell the parent(s) of anchor babies that they were leaving and could take the babies with them or not, as they chose. That's what I used to tell them, before we were releasing them all under Jeh's edicts. I never thought I'd miss Janet. They tried there best to keep that Cuban kid in the states... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 11:41:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Legal advice from Coulter? She's an idiot. Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. That could be significant, could it not? What about presidential EOs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 12:40:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless of what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended there is no chance that a SCOTUS that found Obamacare constitutional twice will reverse anchor baby status. End of Thread right here! Tier1 law degrees and brilliant legal analyses are completely irrelevant - SCOTUS is so fucked up and always has been that they will certainly find birthright citizenship to be 100% constitiutional regardless of how idiotic it is in principle and logic. The whole concept of citizenship being ascribed to an infant solely based on where it is born without regard to the citizenship or nationality of its parents is so bizarrely stupid it is unimaginable. If my wife and I, who are both American citizens  , were travelling through Europe, and she were 8.75 months pregnant, and just happened to go into labor and give birth in Romania, our infant would not be a Romanian citizen, anymore than a third world POS who crosses our border illegally and gives birth in the US, and claims that their infant is a U.S. citizen. If a pregnant Guatemalan criminally crosses our border and squirts out a kid, her kid is also an illegal Guatemalan, not one of our fellow countrymen. One would have to be mentally defective to believe that the offspring of illegals are our fellow (future) countrymen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 12:46:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say what can be done is in the area where congress has power to legislate immigration rules. That could be significant, could it not? What about presidential EOs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legal advice from Coulter?
She's an idiot. Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. That could be significant, could it not? What about presidential EOs? I'd imagine that we could do quite a bit just by reversing the Obama admin policies. But it would have to go even further than that to have a big impact. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 12:52:46 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
End of Thread right here! Tier1 law degrees and brilliant legal analyses are completely irrelevant - SCOTUS is so fucked up and always has been that they will certainly find birthright citizenship to be 100% constitiutional regardless of how idiotic it is in principle and logic. The whole concept of citizenship being ascribed to an infant solely based on where it is born without regard to the citizenship or nationality of its parents is so bizarrely stupid it is unimaginable. If my wife and I, who are both American citizens , were travelling through Europe, and she were 8.75 months pregnant, and just happened to go into labor and give birth in Romania, our infant would not be a Romanian citizen, anymore than a third world POS who crosses our border illegally and gives birth in the US, and claims that their infant is a U.S. citizen. If a pregnant Guatemalan criminally crosses our border and squirts out a kid, her kid is also an illegal Guatemalan, not one of our fellow countrymen. One would have to be mentally defective to believe that the offspring of illegals are our fellow (future) countrymen.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Regardless of what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended there is no chance that a SCOTUS that found Obamacare constitutional twice will reverse anchor baby status. End of Thread right here! Tier1 law degrees and brilliant legal analyses are completely irrelevant - SCOTUS is so fucked up and always has been that they will certainly find birthright citizenship to be 100% constitiutional regardless of how idiotic it is in principle and logic. The whole concept of citizenship being ascribed to an infant solely based on where it is born without regard to the citizenship or nationality of its parents is so bizarrely stupid it is unimaginable. If my wife and I, who are both American citizens , were travelling through Europe, and she were 8.75 months pregnant, and just happened to go into labor and give birth in Romania, our infant would not be a Romanian citizen, anymore than a third world POS who crosses our border illegally and gives birth in the US, and claims that their infant is a U.S. citizen. If a pregnant Guatemalan criminally crosses our border and squirts out a kid, her kid is also an illegal Guatemalan, not one of our fellow countrymen. One would have to be mentally defective to believe that the offspring of illegals are our fellow (future) countrymen.You're right that the current SCOTUS won't do anything. But the concept of jus soli citizenship is not bizarre or unimaginable. It's been firmly rooted in Anglo-American law for centuries, and other nations (though certainly not all) follow that concept as well. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 12:52:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say what can be done is in the area where congress has power to legislate immigration rules. That could be significant, could it not? What about presidential EOs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legal advice from Coulter?
She's an idiot. Nobody who went to Michigan Law and clerked afterwards is likely to be an idiot. But she is batshit crazy (just in general) and she panders to an audience much broader than the legal profession. And in this case, she's chasing a clearly losing concept. That could be significant, could it not? What about presidential EOs? It's EO's where this all gets interesting doesn't it? I am fairly certain that all of the things proposed by Trump, Coulter, etc. are for the most part already law or could be cobbled together from existing law in whole or part. If CO2 can be declared a noxious gas, then I am relatively certain that the OSHA, IRS, EPA, you put the acronym here, fines and violations for hiring an illegal could be massive if the Exec Office so desired. It already is a felony, to steal an identity, prosecuting that alone each time a false Income Tax Return, application for School Free lunch, lease agreement for an apartment, is submitted by an illegal would stop that shit Riki Tiki. There is also a provision in the law that allows local law enforcement to act as border patrol, an EO could make that program viable again and drop the requirement to simply signing up on a Fed LEO website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 1:12:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. It's true. ETA. They are also a bunch of liars People who aren't even related will get phony documents and lie for,each other to get in Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................. Explain exactly what your hypothetical law would do. Because if it eliminates jus soli citizenship, it's going to run right into the enormous, multiple walls I've already described. More importantly, it's not going to do anything to stop illegals from continuing to migrate here nor remove the milions we already have here. Which is why I keep trying to explain that people are wasting energy on the losing fight about birthright citizenship. It would say you can't become a citizen if born of illegal aliens. I believe this is a scam that does bring many to America................or maybe that is a ruse I have fallen for from what I have heard about anchor babies? I have heard that allows them to bring in their parents...........who have to take care of them, relatives who say they are dependent on the parents for support.........blah, blah...............blah. Is all of this just a ruse to make me dislike the so called "scam" of anchor babies? ETA. They are also a bunch of liars People who aren't even related will get phony documents and lie for,each other to get in 100% BS. No such thing as an anchor baby. Babies are real, but they don't anchor anyone. The government let in 30 million foreigners as "workers". 30 million did not sneek in. Show us what law gives the mother these imaginary "anchor" rights? It doesn't exist. The government chooses not to prosecute and deport. That is certainly not a reason to start scratching lines out of the constitution. We won't let them do it to the 2nd or the 14th. Stop letting them in as workers. They aren't supposed to be working here. Children born here are Americans. That's is how it's always been and always will. No, were not changing the constitution because of an internet myth. This anchor baby nonsense sounds really racist and screams for an Orwellian police state to enforce a second class system. All because the government refuses to enforce current law. Stop it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 1:24:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also, think hard about what you said there about a "qualifier" law to keep a constitutional amendment from applying to everyone, and be careful what you wish for. It's scary how many Americans are okay with passing a simple law to rewrite the constitution. Changing fundamental concepts of rights and vast expansion of government power. Yeah sure... Whatever... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 2:16:39 PM EDT
[#48]
There is no intellectual honesty in taking the position that asserts that there is reward for the intentional breaking of one law to gain reward for the act under another law.
The conflict between the laws is precisely what the SCOTUS is supposed to clean up. This needs to go before the court if for no other reason than to show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the members of SCOTUS and should they demonstrate the latter, measures should be taken to seat a SCOTUS with the required temperament to follow what should be common logic when deciding issues of such gravity. We the People should demand no less of our public servants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 3:12:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no intellectual honesty in taking the position that asserts that there is reward for the intentional breaking of one law to gain reward for the act under another law. The conflict between the laws is precisely what the SCOTUS is supposed to clean up. This needs to go before the court if for no other reason than to show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the members of SCOTUS and should they demonstrate the latter, measures should be taken to seat a SCOTUS with the required temperament to follow what should be common logic when deciding issues of such gravity. We the People should demand no less of our public servants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 3:24:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This needs to go before the court if for no other reason than to show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the members of SCOTUS and should they demonstrate the latter, measures should be taken to seat a SCOTUS with the required temperament to follow what should be common logic when deciding issues of such gravity. So your answer is to either pack the court or wave some magic wand to replace the court with members who will give you the answer you want? I'm sure that would never be abused. I mean, its not like there's a lot of gun hating libs who would just love to do the same thing to get a court with the required temperament to follow what they believe should be common logic when deciding what the 2A means. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
