HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

[Flash]

The Supreme Court doesn't define terms. They either follow what the definition is or they ignore it.

The Supreme Court defines terms when they interpret the Constitution. They don't have to follow the dictionary.

See Kentucky v. Dennison for an example.

And many times the courts must interpret how to apply a term, not just define it.

 

[CFM]

Maybe, but it does follow current naturalization law which the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine.

No maybe about it. If citizenship is granted to someone born as a direct result of a crime, they aren't following the intent of the amendment.

Maybe one of those born as a result of a crime will Kate Steinle your family member. You'd deserve it.

 

[CFM]

The Supreme Court defines terms when they interpret the Constitution. They don't have to follow the dictionary.

See Kentucky v. Dennison for an example.

And many times the courts must interpret how to apply a term, not just define it.

No, the ignore the definition. If they use a term in a way it isn't defined, they misapply it.

 

[Flash]

No maybe about it. If citizenship is granted to someone born as a direct result of a crime, they aren't following the intent of the amendment.

Maybe one of those born as a result of a crime will Kate Steinle your family member. You'd deserve it.

Are you saying its intent was only to apply to current slaves born here? If so, Congress still has the power and must make naturalization law for today and it makes citizens of anybody born in the U. S.--that is completely different than any policy dealing with the slaves.

What is the source of this "intent"? If the Supreme Court is to follow dictionary definition of terms, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that expresses (or implies) that intent.


Why would I deserve it?

 

[CFM]

Are you saying its intent was only to apply to current slaves born here? If so, Congress still has the power and must make naturalization law for today and it makes citizens of anybody born in the U. S.--that is completely different than any policy dealing with the slaves.

What is the source of this "intent"? If the Supreme Court is to follow dictionary definition of terms, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that expresses (or implies) that intent.


Why would I deserve it?

If you knew history and the intent of amendment, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

The writings of those that wrote the amendment. Again, if you knew history, you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

For what you support. Why should those that oppose giving someone citizenship due solely to a criminal act deserve it?

When it happens, it should happen to the family member of those that think it's OK to reward criminal acts.

 

[Flash]

If you knew history and the intent of amendment, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

The writings of those that wrote the amendment. Again, if you knew history, you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

For what you support. Why should those that oppose giving someone citizenship due solely to a criminal act deserve it?

When it happens, it should happen to the family member of those that think it's OK to reward criminal acts.

I never said I supported it. Why do you make such naive, uninformed decisions based on your simplistic assumptions? I just pointed out current law which makes citizens of those born here regardless of whether it was the intent of the 14th. It is current naturalization law passed long after the 14th. I never suggested I was for it.

By the way, the guy who killed Kate was violating the law and was deported several times--it obviously did not stop him from murdering her (and has nothing to do with birthright citizenship).

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Where does the constitution say who has authority to interpret the constitution?? Answer - it doesn't directly say, so by the tenth amendment that power rests with the states or the people.

The Constitution clearly says the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution.

Art III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

Art VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


So, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which means it is a law.
A case of law is a question of meaning of a law.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases of the law which means any case requiring interpretation of the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is decided by the Supreme Court or other inferior courts created by Congress.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The text of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. This was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

All the evidence shows that liberals simply invented this phony right out of thin air and forced it into effect without any basis whatsoever, in open defiance of what was intended and authorized.

Your interpretation of the quote from Howard flies in the face of how the English language works.
The normal interpretation of his sentence would be "who are foreigners" refers back to persons and "who belong to the families of ambassadors" refers back to foreigners thus persons is restricted to foreigners and foreigners is restricted to the families of ambassadors. "Aliens", becomes a clarification of "foreigners" in that in only applies to those foreigners within the US. The sentence is saying those persons not included are the families of foreign ambassadors or foreign ministers.

But let's for a moment, assume Howard is simply listing 4 groups as your interpretation requires. Those groups would be foreigners, aliens, families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. This reading becomes absurd. If all foreigners are already excluded then there is no need to mention foreign ambassadors since they are already foreigners. But Howard doesn't list families of foreign ambassadors. He states "families of ambassadors". The US appoints ambassadors so under your reading, it would mean anyone appointed to become a US ambassador would lose the ability for his children to be citizens since that child would be born to the family of an ambassador.

I suggest you read the ruling of Elk v Wilkens. It points out a different part of the 14th amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

By exempting Indians from the count of persons and exempting them from tax, they have removed them from the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[CFM]

I never said I supported it. Why do you make such naive, uninformed decisions based on your simplistic assumptions? I just pointed out current law which makes citizens of those born here regardless of whether it was the intent of the 14th. It is current naturalization law passed long after the 14th. I never suggested I was for it.

By the way, the guy who killed Kate was violating the law and was deported several times--it obviously did not stop him from murdering her (and has nothing to do with birthright citizenship).

Sure you did. When you acknowledged your agreement with Congress being able to set current law related to the issue and the current law is what it is, you supported it. The guy that killed Kate Steinle was a criminal just like the mother of the kid you want to benefit from her crime.

 

[Flash]

Sure you did. When you acknowledged your agreement with Congress being able to set current law related to the issue and the current law is what it is, you supported it. The guy that killed Kate Steinle was a criminal just like the mother of the kid you want to benefit from her crime.

Stating what the Constitution says has nothing to do with supporting or opposing that provision. Congress is clearly given the power to set naturalization law and current law gives citizenship to those born in the U. S. with the exception of foreign diplomatic personnel as defined in the law.

Those are just facts whether support them or not. You want to go by the plain dictionary meaning of the words in the Constitution when discussing the meaning of "shall" but ignore the plain words of the document when discussing the 14th Amendment and use "intent" instead of what was plainly written.

You don't seem to know the difference between federal law, constitutional law, and CFM's opinion. Stating a fact does not mean a person has to support the policy consequences resulting from that fact.

You never told us what the intent of the 14th Amendment was.

 

[CFM]

Stating what the Constitution says has nothing to do with supporting or opposing that provision. Congress is clearly given the power to set naturalization law and current law gives citizenship to those born in the U. S. with the exception of foreign diplomatic personnel as defined in the law.

Those are just facts whether support them or not. You want to go by the plain dictionary meaning of the words in the Constitution when discussing the meaning of "shall" but ignore the plain words of the document when discussing the 14th Amendment and use "intent" instead of what was plainly written.

You don't seem to know the difference between federal law, constitutional law, and CFM's opinion. Stating a fact does not mean a person has to support the policy consequences resulting from that fact.

You never told us what the intent of the 14th Amendment was.

No, I support the intent of the words as they were written when the amendment was passed. That's the best of both world.

Are you claiming you oppose the 14th as applied? Make it clear where you stand. I have. Do you have the guts or will you continue to go back and forth.

Read the history books you fucking lazy bastard. They will tell you the intent if you're truly willing to find out.

 

[Flash]

No, I support the intent of the words as they were written when the amendment was passed. That's the best of both world.

Are you claiming you oppose the 14th as applied? Make it clear where you stand. I have. Do you have the guts or will you continue to go back and forth.

Read the history books you fucking lazy bastard. They will tell you the intent if you're truly willing to find out.

The intent of the words as written varied by those voting for the amendment in the House and Senate and there was disagreement.

Again, in one short sentence, what do you claim was the intent of the 14th? I don't think you have made that clear.

 

[CFM]

The intent of the words as written varied by those voting for the amendment in the House and Senate and there was disagreement.

Again, in one short sentence, what do you claim was the intent of the 14th? I don't think you have made that clear.

Sorry, wrong, as usual.

Again, care to go on record about where you stand? Likely not you gutless coward. You're worse than the nl's on here. At least they're honest about what they are.

 

[Flash]

Sorry, wrong, as usual.

Again, care to go on record about where you stand? Likely not you gutless coward. You're worse than the nl's on here. At least they're honest about what they are.

In other words, you are unable to clearly state the intent of the 14th Amendment? You can't argue that you are right when you are unwilling to state your opinion clearly and succinctly.

Sit down, relax, and take your blood pressure medicine. Resorting to anger and insults usually occurs when someone has nothing substantive left to say.

 

[CFM]

In other words, you are unable to clearly state the intent of the 14th Amendment? You can't argue that you are right when you are unwilling to state your opinion clearly and succinctly.

Sit down, relax, and take your blood pressure medicine. Resorting to anger and insults usually occurs when someone has nothing substantive left to say.

Refusing to take a side like you've refused to do usually occurs because the one refusing to do so is a gutless coward.

Do you support the current interpretation or not? If you aren't willing to say, you've lost.

 

[Into the Night]

Flash doesn't seem to understand the difference between "shall" and "should".

Maybe he can't read a dictionary.

It's obvious he doesn't. Dictionaries, however, don't define words. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation of words. The 'definitions' in a dictionary are simply suggested uses of a word. No dictionary owns any word.

The federal government has defined the use of 'shall' and 'should' for any laws it creates. For the Constitution, the States defined those words. They use the same definitions (it's where the federal government got them from).

It is people that define words, not dictionaries.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It's obvious he doesn't. Dictionaries, however, don't define words. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation of words. The 'definitions' in a dictionary are simply suggested uses of a word. No dictionary owns any word.

The federal government has defined the use of 'shall' and 'should' for any laws it creates. For the Constitution, the States defined those words. They use the same definitions (it's where the federal government got them from).

It is people that define words, not dictionaries.

Any word on that check for The Wall?

 

[Into the Night]

The Supreme Court's definition of the term is what counts in interpreting the Constitution--not the dictionary. Plus, there is no enforcement mechanism.

No court has the authority to 'interpret', or change the meaning of any phrase, or to otherwise change the Constitution of the United States nor of any State.

 

[hvilleherb]

Any word on that check for The Wall?

Trump has found a way to bypass obstructionist Dems by having the military put razor wire on the border.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

No court has the authority to 'interpret', or change the meaning of any phrase, or to otherwise change the Constitution of the United States nor of any State.

The constitution doesn't seem to settle anything at all does it.