Res Ipsa wrote: Because Congress passed a statute that recognizes birthright citizenship.
Yet Supreme Court and people that actual understand the issue, disagree with you, its not extended to "any and every person", ergo the whole....nevermind But as with most things, im excited to watch you proven wrong, again.
What you are disagreeing with has been Supreme Court precedent for over 100 years, was the understood meaning of those who authored and passed the amendment, and is its plain language meaning. To say "the Supreme Court disagrees with you" is to ignore actual Supreme Court precedent for speculation of what you believe the Supreme Court will rule based solely on your belief that enough radicals are on the bench that they'll be as unprincipled hacks as you. But your hope is not an argument, nor is it evidence for what the Court thinks.
You and faps seem to be, as usual, completely lost. "real" executive orders that change the constitution. lol. Hey, I appreciate your posts as they are better entertainment than what is offered in the FC lounge here in sydney.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Water Dog wrote:So, if I've got it right, when this executive order turns out to be a real thing, and sometime after the midterms, every naysayer argument on this thread will look pretty silly.
Is this straw man thing of yours some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder?
No one here has said that Trump won't issue an executive order. However, if he does, and there is any outcome other than the one you predicted:
Water Dog wrote:I figure Supreme Court' response is something along the lines, "President has plenary powers, so of course the executive order is legitimate. But, actually, you don't need an act of congress, or an executive order, because there never was a birth right to citizenship in the first place. Have a nice day."
Then you will look pretty ... much like you always do.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
moksha wrote:Trump took his travel ban executive order to the Supreme Court, and this new court is now Trump friendly.
Quite true, my feathered friend, although the travel ban executive order is quite different. In that case, the executive order was issued pursuant to a statute that gives the president a huge amount of discretion in deciding who gets to enter the U.S. In the case of Birthright Citizenship, the Constitution gives no authority to either the president or the congress to limit the citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Newsroom House Speaker Paul Ryan refuted President Trump's claim that he can end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.
gosh, I'll bet those naysayers are starting to feel pretty silly...
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
EAllusion wrote:What you are disagreeing with has been Supreme Court precedent for over 100 years, was the understood meaning of those who authored and passed the amendment, and is its plain language meaning. To say "the Supreme Court disagrees with you" is to ignore actual Supreme Court precedent for speculation of what you believe the Supreme Court will rule based solely on your belief that enough radicals are on the bench that they'll be as unprincipled hacks as you. But your hope is not an argument, nor is it evidence for what the Court thinks.
Supreme Court, wait for it....specifically......ruled on a case that involved legal immigrants, but please show me where Supreme Court included illegal or even undocumented immigrants in their decision...or the so-called "precedent" you are trying to pull out of a hat.....i can wait.
We all know KG missed it, but if you note my references above to Obama, you will note that President through executivr order doesn't change the Constitution, but rather instructs Government Agencies how to interpret the Constitution, etc.
But that's a lot for the moment...first concentrate on that Supreme Court ruling, or precedent (ha ha ha) that you're so sure exists.....hum hum de hum
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote:What you are disagreeing with has been Supreme Court precedent for over 100 years, was the understood meaning of those who authored and passed the amendment, and is its plain language meaning. To say "the Supreme Court disagrees with you" is to ignore actual Supreme Court precedent for speculation of what you believe the Supreme Court will rule based solely on your belief that enough radicals are on the bench that they'll be as unprincipled hacks as you. But your hope is not an argument, nor is it evidence for what the Court thinks.
Supreme Court, wait for it....specifically......ruled on a case that involved legal immigrants, but please show me where Supreme Court included illegal or even undocumented immigrants in their decision...or the so-called "precedent" you are trying to pull out of a hat.....i can wait.
We all know Kevin Graham missed it, but if you note my references above to Obama, you will note that President through executivr order doesn't change the Constitution, but rather instructs Government Agencies how to interpret the Constitution, etc.
But that's a lot for the moment...first concentrate on that Supreme Court ruling, or precedent (ha ha ha) that you're so sure exists.....hum hum de hum
Again, what you are trying to argue is that Congress can limit Constitutional birthright citizenship for the child by passing an immigration law. Good luck with that.
But, please proceed to post a link to any Supreme Court case that disagrees with me.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
schreech wrote:Ryan: Trump can't end birthright citizenship
Newsroom House Speaker Paul Ryan refuted President Trump's claim that he can end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.
Yup. "Well, you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. ... as Conservatives we believe in the Constitution ... I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear."
So far I've seen nothing on this thread to convince me that Mr Ryan is wrong about that. The words of the 14th are plain, simple, and have been well understood for generations.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
schreech wrote:Ryan: Trump can't end birthright citizenship
Newsroom House Speaker Paul Ryan refuted President Trump's claim that he can end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.
Yup. "Well, you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. ... as Conservatives we believe in the Constitution ... I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear."
So far I've seen nothing on this thread to convince me that Mr Ryan is wrong about that. The words of the 14th are plain, simple, and have been well understood for generations.
It cracks me up that Trump has his confused "conservative" trumpologist-sycophants bending over backwards to try to "interpret" the constitution in a way that makes their dear leader not look like the completely incompetent, clueless fool that he is. At least Ryan, as spineless as he is, is currently acting like an actual conservative who believes in the words written on the constitution instead of caving and pretending the like the ravings of the lunatic Cheeto reflect conservative values.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
I think the 14th Amendment is pretty safe from executive order tampering. This is just some pre-election politicking, in my opinion. Given Leftists are playing games with this caravan it's fairly obvious this is Trump's return salvo.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
