Trump EO's

[mspart]

So the question is that language in the XIV amendment.

Section 1.  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.

So the question falls on this clause, bolded an underlined. 

mspart

 

 

[Tripnsweep]

3 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

What are your thoughts on the 2nd amendment?

As long as you aren't hurting anyone then that's fine. There's obviously going to be reasonable limits to it, like not carrying a rocket launcher around in public, but my only problem is keeping guns away from people who have mental illness or previous issues like DV or something like that. 

In general I think most people who own guns or want to are idiots who treat them like toys, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone then can cosplay all they want. 

[Danny Deck]

The debates prior to passage contemplated this issue and it passed anyway. 

"Senator John Conness from California, the state most impacted by Chinese immigration, favored a broad definition of citizenship was perhaps influential. Conness supported the idea "that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights."' He stated further that the Senate should take no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the
Pacific coast. We are fully aware of the nature of that class of people and their influence among us, and feel entirely able to take care of them and to provide against any evils that may flow from their presence among us. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

 

PDF Link: https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1115551/files/fulltext.pdf

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

8 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

As long as you aren't hurting anyone then that's fine. There's obviously going to be reasonable limits to it, like not carrying a rocket launcher around in public, but my only problem is keeping guns away from people who have mental illness or previous issues like DV or something like that. 

In general I think most people who own guns or want to are idiots who treat them like toys, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone then can cosplay all they want. 

You were starting to make sense until the last sentence.

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

You were starting to make sense until the last sentence.

Most gun owners aren't proficient enough with their firearms to be effective when or if it comes to a situation where they may need to use it. I can't tell you the number of idiots I have met who are proud of owning something impractical but brag about it or wear it around, when they're more likely to shoot themselves in the foot. We have few restrictions on carrying guns in public and I think it's stupid, because this isn't the wild west, and you're not a cowboy. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

14 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Most gun owners aren't proficient enough with their firearms to be effective when or if it comes to a situation where they may need to use it. I can't tell you the number of idiots I have met who are proud of owning something impractical but brag about it or wear it around, when they're more likely to shoot themselves in the foot. We have few restrictions on carrying guns in public and I think it's stupid, because this isn't the wild west, and you're not a cowboy. 

How do you know?

And are you opposed to ethical hunting by trained firearms owners?  And by "opposed" do you think its stupid or "cosplay?"

Edited 6 hours ago by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[ionel]

25 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Most gun owners aren't proficient enough with their firearms to be effective when or if it comes to a situation where they may need to use it. 

How do you know?  What about bow & arrow hunters are they proficient enough?

I'd argue most drivers aren't proficient enough to drive 65 on a highway.

[Offthemat]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

He has his jus wrong. And his logic wrong as a result. The Colonies rejected jus sanguinis in favor of jus soli.

The British Crown, along with most of Europe, practiced, and still practice, jus sanguinis where citizenship flows from blood not location. That way as they colonized the world (note the reference to "these United Colonies" above) any progeny of British citizens would remain British citizens subject to the laws of Britain, not the locality.

But I’d be interested in hearing your response to the discrepancies between your claims and his.  I think you might want to rethink or rephrase this one:

"But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." That is just plain false.

Are you saying that the Constitution says everybody born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S.. citizen?

Eastman:

“Indeed, honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States.“

Next you say:

“‘The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”' This one is more insidious. It ignores the fact that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in reference to Native Americans whose land we had not yet taken, but would, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There were no plans to grant Native Americans citizenship. That only changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.”

It was about more than the indians, who started losing land long before the 14th Amendment.  The Trail of Tears, which came after the indians had ceded much of their original land, began about 1830, some 38 years prior to the Amendment.

This is possibly the dumbest thing you stated, within the context of the discussion.  
 

“Every person now born in the US, hell every person who is in the US, legally or illegally, is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To claim otherwise is dumb.“

While most people are subject to the laws, foreign diplomats are not.  Illegals, visas, vacationers, etc, are not (supposed) to register to vote, serve on juries, or register for the draft.  
 

Your position is weak, unsupported, and illogical.  Floating on a whim. 

[WrestlingRasta]

29 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Most gun owners aren't proficient enough with their firearms to be effective when or if it comes to a situation where they may need to use it. I can't tell you the number of idiots I have met who are proud of owning something impractical but brag about it or wear it around, when they're more likely to shoot themselves in the foot. We have few restrictions on carrying guns in public and I think it's stupid, because this isn't the wild west, and you're not a cowboy. 

It’s hillarious that you pretend to have knowledge of most gun owners 

[mspart]

Trip - In other words you are in favor of laws that restrict a constitutional right like owning guns.   Do you feel the same about other rights and provisions in the constitution?

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

28 minutes ago, mspart said:

Trip - In other words you are in favor of laws that restrict a constitutional right like owning guns.   Do you feel the same about other rights and provisions in the constitution?

mspart

I don't see putting rules on something like guns as being unconstitutional. The intent behind the amendment was that if we were invaded or involved in a war, regular citizens would have a way to be able to resist or fight.

Honestly it's outdated. We aren't being invaded nor will we probably ever be due to the strength of our military and our geography. So most people who own guns are not proficient with them, they don't practice or shoot regularly. So it renders them almost useless. 

My big problem is that people mostly don't respect what guns are. They're not toys. They are instruments of death. You don't shoot to do anything but kill, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. They don't teach you in the military or police to wound people. Yet I'd say around 80% of people who own guns treat them like toys or fashion accessories, have awful discipline with them and handle them unsafely. Part of why we have mass shootings is because people don't respect guns. This isn't a video game or a movie where you can just go mow down bad guys with a machine gun and have no unintended consequences. That kind of stupidity is sadly baked into culture here. 

My view of guns is very unromanticized. If you really believe you need a gun for your personal safety, either you live in a war zone or you'd better be at the range at least twice a week, otherwise you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident. 

[mspart]

23 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

I don't see putting rules on something like guns as being unconstitutional. The intent behind the amendment was that if we were invaded or involved in a war, regular citizens would have a way to be able to resist or fight.

Honestly it's outdated. We aren't being invaded nor will we probably ever be due to the strength of our military and our geography. So most people who own guns are not proficient with them, they don't practice or shoot regularly. So it renders them almost useless. 

My big problem is that people mostly don't respect what guns are. They're not toys. They are instruments of death. You don't shoot to do anything but kill, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. They don't teach you in the military or police to wound people. Yet I'd say around 80% of people who own guns treat them like toys or fashion accessories, have awful discipline with them and handle them unsafely. Part of why we have mass shootings is because people don't respect guns. This isn't a video game or a movie where you can just go mow down bad guys with a machine gun and have no unintended consequences. That kind of stupidity is sadly baked into culture here. 

My view of guns is very unromanticized. If you really believe you need a gun for your personal safety, either you live in a war zone or you'd better be at the range at least twice a week, otherwise you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident. 

You  did not address my question.   It would  seem you only hold this position on laws to restrict constitutional rights to the second amendment.   That is inconsistent to say the least.  

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

But I’d be interested in hearing your response to the discrepancies between your claims and his.  I think you might want to rethink or rephrase this one:

"But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." That is just plain false.

Are you saying that the Constitution says everybody born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S.. citizen?

Eastman:

“Indeed, honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States.“

Next you say:

“‘The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”' This one is more insidious. It ignores the fact that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in reference to Native Americans whose land we had not yet taken, but would, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There were no plans to grant Native Americans citizenship. That only changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.”

It was about more than the indians, who started losing land long before the 14th Amendment.  The Trail of Tears, which came after the indians had ceded much of their original land, began about 1830, some 38 years prior to the Amendment.

This is possibly the dumbest thing you stated, within the context of the discussion.  
 

“Every person now born in the US, hell every person who is in the US, legally or illegally, is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To claim otherwise is dumb.“

While most people are subject to the laws, foreign diplomats are not.  Illegals, visas, vacationers, etc, are not (supposed) to register to vote, serve on juries, or register for the draft.  
 

Your position is weak, unsupported, and illogical.  Floating on a whim. 

I know I hurt your feelings by saying you were dumb. Sorry about that. But now you are acting like it is two weeks from now.

Read beyond Eastman. Read original source material.

For example, read the actual Supreme Court statements.

"The Fourteen Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory . . . .  The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.  Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate [while in the United States and] . . . 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;' and his child . . . 'is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'"

And

"To hold that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

And

"Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation.  The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship."

My logic is based on Supreme Court rulings.

[mspart]

WKN - Just asking when was this opinion made?  Is it possible for it to be amended?   It certainly is compelling. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

39 minutes ago, mspart said:

WKN - Just asking when was this opinion made?  Is it possible for it to be amended?   It certainly is compelling. 

mspart

That is from 1898 when the question was settled definitively. The Court has had no reason to answer the question again that they had already answered.

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

You  did not address my question.   It would  seem you only hold this position on laws to restrict constitutional rights to the second amendment.   That is inconsistent to say the least.  

mspart

I don't believe that having unfettered access to firearms is the intent behind what the 2nd amendment is. It's an obsolete amendment that was created when there was a very real and reasonable threat towards this country existing. In the subsequent 250 years, I think we've eliminated the notion that we are going to be invaded. The last time a foreign country occupied any part of the territorial US was during WW2, and that was some remote Alaskan island. The military was more than capable of handling it. 

I think we should have some personal responsibility that goes with gun ownership. We have it with cars, why not guns? If you aren't mentally ill, not a criminal or anything, can pass a written test, demonstrate you know how to actually use your firearm properly, and insure it, then I don't have a problem with that. If you think you need a machine gun or something like that, that just shows how unqualified you are to own a gun. 

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I know I hurt your feelings by saying you were dumb. Sorry about that. But now you are acting like it is two weeks from now.

Read beyond Eastman. Read original source material.

For example, read the actual Supreme Court statements.

"The Fourteen Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory . . . .  The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.  Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate [while in the United States and] . . . 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;' and his child . . . 'is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'"

And

"To hold that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

And

"Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation.  The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship."

My logic is based on Supreme Court rulings.

Eastman and the other people he noted addressed the difference in, and the widely held belief that Wong Kim was wrongly decided.  Like he said, “honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States.  
 

This is undoubtedly headed for the Supreme Court.  Originalists will prevail, and I find it hard to believe that they will decide that illegal immigration’s anchor babies are what they desired when it was written. 
 

Don’t you worry yourself in the least about your cute little remarks bothering me.  I’ve noticed you saying the same about others.  I appreciate it that you don’t spend your time telling us how smart you are.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

11 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Eastman and the other people he noted addressed the difference in, and the widely held belief that Wong Kim was wrongly decided.  Like he said, “honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States.  
 

This is undoubtedly headed for the Supreme Court.  Originalists will prevail, and I find it hard to believe that they will decide that illegal immigration’s anchor babies are what they desired when it was written. 
 

Don’t you worry yourself in the least about your cute little remarks bothering me.  I’ve noticed you saying the same about others.  I appreciate it that you don’t spend your time telling us how smart you are.  

Forget about scholars. The exact words from the Supreme Court directly address this situation and Eastman is just plain wrong.

[Offthemat]

19 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Forget about scholars. The exact words from the Supreme Court directly address this situation and Eastman is just plain wrong.

Wong Kim wasn’t born to illegal immigrants.  It’s different. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

59 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Wong Kim wasn’t born to illegal immigrants.  It’s different. 

The Supreme Court made it clear that the imigration status of the parents is irrelevant when it comes to birthright citizenship.

But the real issue is not this at all.

The real issue is whether a President can use an executive order to violate The Constitution. I would be shocked if the Supreme Court would hold that a President can change their decisions unilaterally. 

That is, and should remain, the province of dictators, not Presidents.

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

I don't believe that having unfettered access to firearms is the intent behind what the 2nd amendment is. It's an obsolete amendment that was created when there was a very real and reasonable threat towards this country existing. In the subsequent 250 years, I think we've eliminated the notion that we are going to be invaded. The last time a foreign country occupied any part of the territorial US was during WW2, and that was some remote Alaskan island. The military was more than capable of handling it. 

I think we should have some personal responsibility that goes with gun ownership. We have it with cars, why not guns? If you aren't mentally ill, not a criminal or anything, can pass a written test, demonstrate you know how to actually use your firearm properly, and insure it, then I don't have a problem with that. If you think you need a machine gun or something like that, that just shows how unqualified you are to own a gun. 

Again you didn't answer the question.   What other rights in the Constitution should be curbed by Congressional action?

mspart

[mspart]

8 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The Supreme Court made it clear that the imigration status of the parents is irrelevant when it comes to birthright citizenship.

But the real issue is not this at all.

The real issue is whether a President can use an executive order to violate The Constitution. I would be shocked if the Supreme Court would hold that a President can change their decisions unilaterally. 

That is, and should remain, the province of dictators, not Presidents.

1.   Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, why was this necessary given the 14th amendment.

2.  Personally I think EOs should not be used except in rare occasions, or only in those things that are executive in nature and not legislative. For instance an EO stopping enforcement of immigration law should be immediately suspect and not followed on legislative grounds.   An EO turning that around would be a proper use of an EO.

3.  I agree that this is what makes the President into would be dictator.   

4.  Since there is no line item veto, an EO should not be used to say I'll enforce this part but not that part.  

5.  An EO eliminating student debt is not legal.   And it should be apparent.   That is the legislature's prerogative.  Why it has the force of law I do not understand.  How did EOs that make new law get to the legal status of actual new law?   That needs to be reversed. 

mspart