HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

Into the Night said:
Congress is required to call a constitutional convention when requested by 2/3 of the State legislatures. It's really pretty simple to understand.
Click to expand...

It is easy to understand the Constitution says they "shall" call a convention. It has never been determined if "shall" means "must" or "may." It says states shall provide full faith and credit and extradite fugitives, but there is no way to enforce these provisions and states have not always followed these "requirements."

I can't imagine Congress not following this provision, but I never thought states would refuse to extradite fugitives, either.
 
Flash said:
You made the same claims you cannot prove--that Article V makes it mandatory for Congress to call a constitutional convention if requested by 2/3 of the states. Since it has never happened and there have been no cases, you have no evidence supporting your case.

I at least pointed to cases where the courts ruled "shall" means "may"---so I was merely reciting facts and not making any claims about what Congress could or would not do.
Click to expand...

When say there is no reason they would do differently with an Article V case, you are making claims.

I made no claims. I provide the definition of the word "shall" from the dictionary and where the same word appears in the Constitution in Article V. That's citing facts.
 
Flash said:
It is easy to understand the Constitution says they "shall" call a convention. It has never been determined if "shall" means "must" or "may." It says states shall provide full faith and credit and extradite fugitives, but there is no way to enforce these provisions and states have not always followed these "requirements."

I can't imagine Congress not following this provision, but I never thought states would refuse to extradite fugitives, either.
Click to expand...

It means MUST. Congress is required to call the convention.

The States DO have the authority to overrule Congress on this issue.
 
Flash said:
It is easy to understand the Constitution says they "shall" call a convention. It has never been determined if "shall" means "must" or "may." It says states shall provide full faith and credit and extradite fugitives, but there is no way to enforce these provisions and states have not always followed these "requirements."

I can't imagine Congress not following this provision, but I never thought states would refuse to extradite fugitives, either.
Click to expand...

If a State extradites a fugitive from another State, that State where the fugitive is currently in MUST deliver up the fugitive. Stop changing words in the Constitution. Nothing requires a State to extradite a fugitive from another State.
 
CFM said:
When say there is no reason they would do differently with an Article V case, you are making claims.

I made no claims. I provide the definition of the word "shall" from the dictionary and where the same word appears in the Constitution in Article V. That's citing facts.
Click to expand...

"shall" always means MUST. It always means it is required.
 
CFM said:
That's what multiple dictionary sources say.
Click to expand...

Everywhere in the law, including various federal regulations, the use of the word 'shall' always means 'must' or 'required'. If the option is given, the use of the word 'may' or 'optionally' or even 'recommended' is used instead.
 
Into the Night said:
Everywhere in the law, including various federal regulations, the use of the word 'shall' always means 'must' or 'required'. If the option is given, the use of the word 'may' or 'optionally' or even 'recommended' is used instead.
Click to expand...

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

Maybe he can't read a dictionary.
 
CFM said:
When say there is no reason they would do differently with an Article V case, you are making claims.

I made no claims. I provide the definition of the word "shall" from the dictionary and where the same word appears in the Constitution in Article V. That's citing facts.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court's definition of the term is what counts in interpreting the Constitution--not the dictionary. Plus, there is no enforcement mechanism.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes I have. The answers are in Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

The Constitution tells us what it says, not how it is interpreted which is how it is applied in practice. Many things in the Constitution do not include their interpretation--what free speech can be restricted, what searches constitute probable cause, what religious practices constitute freedom of religion......
 
Into the Night said:
It means MUST. Congress is required to call the convention.

The States DO have the authority to overrule Congress on this issue.
Click to expand...

And the states cannot force Congress to call a convention. Why doesn't it mean "must" when it applies to full-faith-and-credit and extradition?
 
Into the Night said:
If a State extradites a fugitive from another State, that State where the fugitive is currently in MUST deliver up the fugitive. Stop changing words in the Constitution. Nothing requires a State to extradite a fugitive from another State.
Click to expand...

As you can see from these Supreme Court cases, the extradition provision has been interpreted differently at different times:

"In Kentucky v. Dennison – 65 U.S. 66 (1860) the Supreme Court said the federal government was without authority to compel the governor of a sovereign state to surrender a prisoner to another state. Times had changed by 1987, when the Supreme Court, in deciding Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219, stated: “the Dennison holding as to the federal courts’ authority to enforce the Extradition Clause rested on a fundamental premise — that the States and the Federal Government in all circumstances must be viewed as coequal sovereigns — which is not representative of current law.” A demonstration of how the Supreme Court has functionally centralized power in Washington through its decisions."
 
There is another thread about a pregnant woman from the caravan who scaled the fence and and gave birth in San Diego. That child is now an American citizen--proof of birthright citizenship (whether we approve or disapprove).
 
CFM said:
Flash doesn't seem to understand the difference between "shall" and "should".

Maybe he can't read a dictionary.
Click to expand...

Flash knows the Supreme Court determines the meaning of these terms and has not always agreed with dictionary definitions.
 
Flash said:
Flash knows the Supreme Court determines the meaning of these terms and has not always agreed with dictionary definitions.
Click to expand...

The dictionary determines the meanings. Flash doesn't seem to realize that when the Court doesn't follow the definition, they show themselves to be less than intelligent.
 
Flash said:
There is another thread about a pregnant woman from the caravan who scaled the fence and and gave birth in San Diego. That child is now an American citizen--proof of birthright citizenship (whether we approve or disapprove).
Click to expand...

It's proof that those believing someone born to a criminal that came here without permission don't know the intent of the 14th amendment and very little about history.
 
Flash said:
And the states cannot force Congress to call a convention. Why doesn't it mean "must" when it applies to full-faith-and-credit and extradition?
Click to expand...


Apparently those making the decision with full faith and credit can't read a fucking dictionary.
 
Flash said:
The Supreme Court's definition of the term is what counts in interpreting the Constitution--not the dictionary. Plus, there is no enforcement mechanism.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court doesn't define terms. They either follow what the definition is or they ignore it.
 
CFM said:
It's proof that those believing someone born to a criminal that came here without permission don't know the intent of the 14th amendment and very little about history.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it does follow current naturalization law which the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top