Donald Trump

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Trump and others want to end birthright citizenship. There are arguments either way as to whether that can be done without a constitutional amendment.

A "legal expert" at HuffPo says that not only would it require a constitutional amendment, but that such a constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional.

And this guy is their Legal Affairs specialist.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b07addcb44c96a

A constitutional amendment can never be unconstitutional. If there are conflicting amendments, the latter "should" always take precedent. That guy at the Huffington Post is an idiot.

Amendments are changes to the Constitution and must be upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by zico20

A constitutional amendment can never be unconstitutional.

HuffPuff Boy has recalibrated. He now says that yes, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. However, a proposal for an amendment to prohibit birthright citizenship is obviously targeting Latinos, he says. Therefore, the proposal violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and the proposal is unconstitutional.

Language has been changed to reflect that an effort to change the Constitution to revoke birthright citizenship could in theory be found unconstitutional before any proposed legislation became an official part of the document.

There you have it folks, straight from the Ministry of Truth. I guess the Thought Police will nail Trump for even thinking about this.

HuffPuff Boy, despite his legal expertise, seems to have missed a few points. Like the First Amendment. And the fact that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause only applies to citizens.

[pandy]

All of this is interesting, but we all know that there there is not going to be an amendment and no one is getting deported. It's all a waste of time. We need our elected officials, and candidates, to come up with realistic policies that can actually be implemented. The candidate that does that will probably get the nomination.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Clocker

HuffPuff Boy has recalibrated. He now says that yes, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. However, a proposal for an amendment to prohibit birthright citizenship is obviously targeting Latinos, he says. Therefore, the proposal violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and the proposal is unconstitutional.



There you have it folks, straight from the Ministry of Truth. I guess the Thought Police will nail Trump for even thinking about this.

HuffPuff Boy, despite his legal expertise, seems to have missed a few points. Like the First Amendment. And the fact that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause only applies to citizens.

The proposal may be unconstitutional but the final amendment is not. If there would be an amendment that says a person does not get automatic citizenship by being born in inside the USA borders it must be upheld. The 14th amendment is irrelevant.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by pandy

All of this is interesting, but we all know that there there is not going to be an amendment and no one is getting deported..

If Trump ever gets elected as President, he'll be booting out any illegal aliens who are caught doing felonies. You can bet on that.

[Tom]

So here, citizenship is denied to children whose parents are legally in the country. Why can't it be denied to those illegally in the country?

Mexico gives up its authority over the illegals in a de facto way by refusing to try to stop them or punishing them when we sent them back.
We exert a de facto authrority over them giving the welfare, sanctuary, driver's licenses, health care.....possession is 9/10s of the law.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The 14th Amendment states two conditions for birthright citizenship, born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Both must be met.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans were not citizens by birth because they were directly subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe, which took precedent over the jurisdiction of the US. That jurisdiction can be changed by law, and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made native Americans citizens by law.

Another exemption by law currently in effect is that children born in the US to foreign officials representing their country here are not granted citizenship. Again, the reason is that the parents are citizens of another country, and are not under the same jurisdiction of the US that they would be as citizens. So here, citizenship is denied to children whose parents are legally in the country. Why can't it be denied to those illegally in the country?

From my position of knowing nothing about law, this almost looks like a no brainer. However, even in the event I am correct, our supreme court has already demonstrated that at least 5 of them them don't have a brain. So this could be a good test of my "no brainer".

[Valuist]

The left likes to claim Trump is crazy. And look who has momentum on the left? Bernie Sanders. Maybe Bernie can come up with a way to tax 110% of our earnings. We can rename Washington West Moscow.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

From my position of knowing nothing about law, this almost looks like a no brainer. However, even in the event I am correct, our supreme court has already demonstrated that at least 5 of them them don't have a brain. So this could be a good test of my "no brainer".

By historic evidence, those are at least two cases of certain classes of people that do not have birthright citizenship. And Native Americans were never found to have citizenship by birthright, but by the passage of a law granting it. So we know that birth in the US in and of itself does not grant citizenship.

I would be more charitable than you and stipulate that 4.5 justices are brainless. And since the brainless start with the desired result and then make the law fit in that box, I would guess that they would find somehow that illegals are sufficiently subject to US jurisdiction to qualify.

[Tom]

I haven't had this much fun since Morton Downey Jr. was on TV.
Nice special on him on CNN last night.....good times!

[woodtoo]

Trumps speech at Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Mobile,Alabama is expecting upwards of 40,000 attendees,can be heard online at Shallow Nation.com

The Donalds other speeches can be viewed there also. Should be a good one

WOO HOO!!!

[Dave Schwartz]

we don't necessarily agree with what he says, but we like the way he says it.

That's funny. Exactly opposite of what I think.

I DO agree with much of what he says but DO NOT like his way of saying it.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I DO agree with much of what he says but DO NOT like his way of saying it.

As president, he would have to be a lot more diplomatic than he has been so far if he wanted to get anything done beyond executive orders. One of Obama's biggest problems in accomplishing his policies, thank god, is his inability to work with others.

I'm not sure how much more effective Trump would be. Compromise is not a word in the Trumpese language. Trump has identified some real problems that were not getting addressed, but he hasn't put forward any workable solutions yet.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Trumps speech at Ladd-Peebles Stadium ...

As I was watching part of that, it occurred to me that he doesn't really give speeches, in a more traditional sense. He talks to the people, not at them or over them. I think that's a big part of his appeal. It sure ain't politics as usual, and that may overcome a lack of specifics or a history of non-conservative policy positions.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

As I was watching part of that, it occurred to me that he doesn't really give speeches, in a more traditional sense. He talks to the people, not at them or over them. I think that's a big part of his appeal.

His appeal is that of a bloviating billionaire "strongman" shithead. Apparently, there are some folks who dig that