Trump and Walker Both Admit they are incapable of being POTUS

[theIowaHawk]

The argument that the Constitution, statute, or rule says so loses about 90% of the time in front of the US Supreme Court.

Au contraire. His questions was a simple one that needed a simple answer.

As a comparison:

Lawyer stands up in front of SCOTUS and says, "Now why on earth would we NOT require a criminal defendant to testify at his own trial?" Would be easily answered with, "uhhhhhhhh, because the Fifth says so?"

I think, in the very least, the "burden" is on the "jurisdiction" guys. The easiest reading of the 14th is that being born in the US = Citizen, and those who argue it means something else need to carry that burden. Especially considering they are attempting to strip away rights that the status quo says they have.

 

[joelbc1]

Did you seriously equate opposition to unrestricted jus soliwith the extermination of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust?

Damn it, now I have to lower my expectations for you even further.

Fact is TJ that the Constitution says "born"...it's pretty clear what the Constitution says.....and now you think it needs to be reinterpreted because you perceive a political problem? That just isn't how the USA, a country of laws, works. You CAN amend the Constitution...but the POTUS cannot do so by himself. Both Walker and Trump say they will deport entire families, eventhough members of these families are citizens of the USA...with all the rights and privileges entitled to its citizens....because? you/Trump/Walker don't like them???
FDR faux pas'd moving the Japanese to internment camps during WW2.....an action like Trump and Walker endorse goes way beyond what FDR did when circumsyances were much more dire.

 

[TJ8869]

Fact is TJ that the Constitution says "born"...it's pretty clear what the Constitution says.....and now you think it needs to be reinterpreted because you perceive a political problem? That just isn't how the USA, a country of laws, works. You CAN amend the Constitution...but the POTUS cannot do so by himself. Both Walker and Trump say they will deport entire families, eventhough members of these families are citizens of the USA...with all the rights and privileges entitled to its citizens....because? you/Trump/Walker don't like them???
FDR faux pas'd moving the Japanese to internment camps during WW2.....an action like Trump and Walker endorse goes way beyond what FDR did when circumsyances were much more dire.

Again, I'm not endorsing what Trump and Walker proposed. I'm arguing specifically about the interpretation of the language in the 14th Amendment. You are correct that it says "born". However, you're glossing over the "and..." part, and the "and..." part is kind of important.

If the amendment read "OR subject to the jurisdicion thereof..." then you win, hands down. Alas, it reads "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I probably should do this, but for the sake of brevity I'm going to assume you know the difference between "and" and "or". So we need to decipher exactly what is meant by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

If someone is a subject of a foreign country and illegally entered this country, I'm not convinced their child is subject to our jurisdiction and therefore automatically entitled to birthright citizenship.

If that makes me a Nazi then I guess I'll go home and eat some saurbraten and spaetzle.

 

[joelbc1]

Again, I'm not endorsing what Trump and Walker proposed. I'm arguing specifically about the interpretation of the language in the 14th Amendment. You are correct that it says "born". However, you're glossing over the "and..." part, and the "and..." part is kind of important.

If the amendment read "OR subject to the jurisdicion thereof..." then you win, hands down. Alas, it reads "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I probably should do this, but for the sake of brevity I'm going to assume you know the difference between "and" and "or". So we need to decipher exactly what is meant by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

If someone is a subject of a foreign country and illegally entered this country, I'm not convinced their child is subject to our jurisdiction and therefore automatically entitled to birthright citizenship.

If that makes me a Nazi then I guess I'll go home and eat some saurbraten and spaetzle.

TJ...out of curiosity, how do you feel about the phrase "well regulated militia" as it is used in the 2nd Amendment and how it relates to "gun rights"? Does it include your right to buy assault weapons and cop killer bullets...or should those weapons be reserved for militia/law enforcement only?

 

[TJ8869]

TJ...out of curiosity, how do you feel about the phrase "well regulated militia" as it is used in the 2nd Amendment and how it relates to "gun rights"? Does it include your right to buy assault weapons and cop killer bullets...or should those weapons be reserved for militia/law enforcement only?

What the hell do cop killer bullets have to do with birthright citizenship?

If anything, the fact that we have had to dissect the 2nd Amendment many times as technology changes undermines your own viewpoint. It suggests that maybe we should take another look at the 14th Amendment to see if "subject to the jutisdiction thereof" still means the same thing it meant 150 years ago when our primary concern was making sure freed slaves were entitled to citizenship.

 

[joelbc1]

What the hell do cop killer bullets have to do with birthright citizenship?

If anything, the fact that we have had to dissect the 2nd Amendment many times as technology changes undermines your own viewpoint. It suggests that maybe we should take another look at the 14th Amendment to see if "subject to the jutisdiction thereof" still means the same thing it meant 150 years ago when our primary concern was making sure freed slaves were entitled to citizenship.

No..I was just trying to use your line of thinking and applying to another Constitutional right. Do you honestly believe the writer's had todays weapons in mind when they wrote it? Yet, its defenders will never weaken.....The NRA refuses.....protecting the constitutional right to carry...its the same thing with citizenship. Obama can never suspend the second amendment..and Trump and Walker will never suspend the 14th, either. The gun owners in America are much better defended in America than its young citizens.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If someone is a subject of a foreign country and illegally entered this country, I'm not convinced their child is subject to our jurisdiction and therefore automatically entitled to birthright citizenship.

Fine, but you say you just aren't convinced, which I would think means one should lean towards citizenship. Pretty dastardly to remove citizenship just because you aren't convinced.

Ok, so you say that the parents are the subject of a foreign country. Why? They clearly left that country, no reason to believe they want to return. So why are they subject? Because they were born there?

 

[TJ8869]

No..I was just trying to use your line of thinking and applying to another Constitutional right. Do you honestly believe the writer's had todays weapons in mind when they wrote it? Yet, its defenders will never weaken.....The NRA refuses.....protecting the constitutional right to carry...its the same thing with citizenship. Obama can never suspend the second amendment..and Trump and Walker will never suspend the 14th, either. The gun owners in America are much better defended in America than its young citizens.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. For the third time - I do not support Trump or Walker unilaterally suspending 14th Amendment rights. I am saying we should revisit the amendment and determine whether automatic citizenship for anchor babies is really guaranteed or should be guaranteed.

By making that horrible comparison, you reasoned your way into an embarrassing dead end. You're arguing that the 14th Amendment is clear and decided and never needs to be examined again. And you tried to buttress that argument by pointing out that we have had to examine and tweak the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I guess you didn't stop to think about how much you undermined your own argument with that point.

The 14th Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War, at a time when millions of slaves had become freed men and we needed to clarify their legal status. I doubt very much our government's intention was to encourage pregnant women from Mexico and other countries to sneak across the border illegally and give birth in an American hospital so their baby can be granted automatic citizenship.

 

[TJ8869]

Fine, but you say you just aren't convinced, which I would think means one should lean towards citizenship. Pretty dastardly to remove citizenship just because you aren't convinced.

Ok, so you say that the parents are the subject of a foreign country. Why? They clearly left that country, no reason to believe they want to return. So why are they subject? Because they were born there?

No, because that's where they live. They entered our country illegally. Whether or not they want to go back is kind of irrelevant. If I break into a really nice house, I might not want to leave, either. But the law says I have to.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

So what is it you are wanting the local sheriff to do? Round up illegals, drive outside of his jurisdiction to move then...while kidnapping citizen children?

no, the local sheriff can do the deed on the ones in his jurisdiction

 

[Bob Pelini_]

Over the weekend Donald Trump told America he would send back all illegal immigrants to their native countries. That would include their children who were naturally born US citizens. Yesterday Gov. Walker said he supported the same idea as Trump at the Iowa State Fair.
In doing so, BOTH these candidates have announced that will NOT uphold the Constitution of the United States (in this case the 14th Amendment). This is a bold pronouncement by two men who have taken every liberty to criticize President Obama at every turn.
In order to become POTUS, the candidate-elect must take the "oath of office." Part of that oath states the POTUS will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. That would include the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
Thank God all the GOP candidates do not hold the Constitution is such little regard as Trump and Walker.

Going overboard with the Stretch Armstrong imitation aren't you Joel?


The courts would eventually decide who gets the boot, nothing either fine man said comes close to not upholding the Constitution, however Barack Hussein Obama has torn up the Constitution and replaced it with a pen and a phone.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The argument that the Constitution, statute, or rule says so loses about 90% of the time in front of the US Supreme Court.

because the supremes are bunch of fools who interpret things wrongly

 

[joelbc1]

You're not listening to what I'm saying. For the third time - I do not support Trump or Walker unilaterally suspending 14th Amendment rights. I am saying we should revisit the amendment and determine whether automatic citizenship for anchor babies is really guaranteed or should be guaranteed.

By making that horrible comparison, you reasoned your way into an embarrassing dead end. You're arguing that the 14th Amendment is clear and decided and never needs to be examined again. And you tried to buttress that argument by pointing out that we have had to examine and tweak the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I guess you didn't stop to think about how much you undermined your own argument with that point.

The 14th Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War, at a time when millions of slaves had become freed men and we needed to clarify their legal status. I doubt very much our government's intention was to encourage pregnant women from Mexico and other countries to sneak across the border illegally and give birth in an American hospital so their baby can be granted automatic citizenship.

Then these two guys have proven themselves incapable of being POTUS...which was my point!
If you want to revisit and amend, have at it...but there is a procedure for doing so. As I said earlier...the folks of Germany allowed Hitler to blame the Jews for all, their problems....much like many here believe "illegals" are the source of our nation's problems. Maybe you need to get with the DAR to draw up new requirements for US citizenship. Nothing is more exemplary of latent American racism that its immigration "quotas". What folks need to remember is that when you have the greatest place on earth to live, folks are going to try and enter any way they can.
Perhaps the 2nd Amendment needs to be revisited and tweaked for the same reasons you think the 14th is outdated.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes. "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." is the key requirement.

If the mother entered the country illegally then how can the baby be considered to be here legally?

Help me understand. Do we not have jurisdiction over illegals? If that's true, are they really even illegals? Who are we to say if we don't have jurisdiction? I think your argument has a big problem.

 

[naturalmwa]

The argument that the Constitution, statute, or rule says so loses about 90% of the time in front of the US Supreme Court.

A fact or a guess? Link to fact?

 

[theIowaHawk]

No, because that's where they live. They entered our country illegally. Whether or not they want to go back is kind of irrelevant. If I break into a really nice house, I might not want to leave, either. But the law says I have to.

Which has no relevance to this at all. In fact, let's use your silly analogy. They are removed from the house, that doesn't mean they are jurisdiction ally someone else's. In fact, the locality where the house is would take jurisdiction. It was a dumb analogy...ironic considering your posts above.

 

[theIowaHawk]

no, the local sheriff can do the deed on the ones in his jurisdiction

Is this English?

 

[naturalmwa]

Is this English?

He's helping us out, he admits they are in our jurisdiction.

 

[TJ8869]

Which has no relevance to this at all. In fact, let's use your silly analogy. They are removed from the house, that doesn't mean they are jurisdiction ally someone else's. In fact, the locality where the house is would take jurisdiction. It was a dumb analogy...ironic considering your posts above.

In my defense, it was the closest I could come to making an analogy stupid enough to compare to your statement. You actually justified illegal immigration by saying they don't want to leave. And you said it in the context of who is our government to tell them they can't stay.

 

[TJ8869]

Help me understand. Do we not have jurisdiction over illegals? If that's true, are they really even illegals? Who are we to say if we don't have jurisdiction? I think your argument has a big problem.

In order to understand what our government meant when they wrote those words nearly 150 years ago, we can examine the Civil Right Act of 1866, which was a precursor to the 14th Amendment. It specified that anyone "born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens". A pregnant woman who sneaks across the border from Mexico is subject to a foreign power, viz. Mexico.

I think it's reasonable to believe our government did not intend to reward illegal immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship. And I think it's reasonable for the SCOTUS to examine the 14th Amendment and determine whether that is the case.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Republicans have gone way overboard exploiting this issue. They have squeezed more air out of this political football than Tom Brady's equipment manager.

But please at least acknowledge that Democrats also are guilty of playing politics with the incident. They knew right away Benghazi was much more than just a YouTube video protest. They knew that for several months, militant groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda were active in that area. They had fired an RPG at a British diplomatic convoy. They had attacked the International Red Cross office. They had bombed the perimeter wall of the very same compound that was attacked on 9/11. The Libyan government - the same Libyan government we had installed after ousting Gaddafi - had been warning us about security in the area and quickly determined that the incident was a planned and coordinated attack by militants. They stated this the very next day, even as our leaders were blaming YouTube.

The White House couldn't have Americans thinking it was terrorism because that didn't fit their campaign narrative. The election was only a few weeks away. Just days earlier, Joe Biden had arrogantly told Americans to ask Osama bin Laden if he was better off than he was four years ago.

Acknowledging a terrorist attack at that time would have been a political mess. So they blamed a YouTube video. It didn't rise to the level of a scandal or a conspiracy, but it was piss poor leadership. It was amateur hour politics at a time when the families of Christopher Stevens and his comrades deserved real leadership and honest answers.

Simple question: Would the 4 Americans have died if there hadn't been a video?

 

[Lone Clone]

Simple question: Would the 4 Americans have died if there hadn't been a video?

The attack would have occurred. Whether it would have occurred at the same time, and thus cost the lives of the 4 Americans, nobody can know. Quite possibly if it had occurred at a different time, more than 4 Americans might have been killed.

Similarly, whether the lives of at least 2 of the 4 could have been saved if the help requested had been sent, nobody can know.

 

[naturalmwa]

In order to understand what our government meant when they wrote those words nearly 150 years ago, we can examine the Civil Right Act of 1866, which was a precursor to the 14th Amendment. It specified that anyone "born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens". A pregnant woman who sneaks across the border from Mexico is subject to a foreign power, viz. Mexico.

I think it's reasonable to believe our government did not intend to reward illegal immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship. And I think it's reasonable for the SCOTUS to examine the 14th Amendment and determine whether that is the case.

I think that's a fairly strong responce which I still disagree with, but has the merit of being well crafted. Good job and thank you.

 

[TJ8869]

Simple question: Would the 4 Americans have died if there hadn't been a video?

Most likely, yes. The video was not the impetus for the attack. The video wasn't the impetus when the militants attacked the perimeter wall of the same compound earlier that summer. The video wasn't the impetus when they launched a rocket-propelled grenade at a British diplomatic convoy earlier that summer. The video wasn't the impetus when they attacked the International Red Cross building earlier that summer.

Then only connection between the YouTube video and the Benghazi attack is that they both coincided with the 9/11 anniversary. They only video that may have inspired the Benghazi attack was a video made by Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirming that Abu Yahya al-Libi had been killed by an American drone strike and imploring militants to exact revenge by saying "his blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders".

 

[TJ8869]

I think that's a fairly strong responce which I still disagree with, but has the merit of being well crafted. Good job and thank you.

Fair enough. We shall respectfully disagree on this subject.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Over the weekend Donald Trump told America he would send back all illegal immigrants to their native countries. That would include their children who were naturally born US citizens. Yesterday Gov. Walker said he supported the same idea as Trump at the Iowa State Fair.
In doing so, BOTH these candidates have announced that will NOT uphold the Constitution of the United States (in this case the 14th Amendment). This is a bold pronouncement by two men who have taken every liberty to criticize President Obama at every turn.
In order to become POTUS, the candidate-elect must take the "oath of office." Part of that oath states the POTUS will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. That would include the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
Thank God all the GOP candidates do not hold the Constitution is such little regard as Trump and Walker.

We have an angry electorate out there joel...tired of seeing these people continue to get freebies while they fight for survival...they want them gone.

 

[joelbc1]

We have an angry electorate out there joel...tired of seeing these people continue to get freebies while they fight for survival...they want them gone.

"freebies"? Really....I don't see it here in DSM. What "freebies" do they get? A lot these folks need to remember that but for the grace of God, it could be them. Here I see a lot more worthless white crap walking the streets than I do "illegals".....
I understand there is an angry electorate out there Tenn.........However, what I see and hear from this electorate isn't very smart......and surely not very tolerant. People honestly think folks wanna be poor? addicted? living off charity and pay check to pay check? The "illegal" threat is a scare tactic that is the product of our corporate and business community. If these folks would follow the laws in existance, "illegals" wouldn't be here because there would be no work for them. And ofcourse, a lot of menial, low paying jobs would be paying more money to get done.......but that would mean businesses and corporations would not have all the monies they now enjoy...... The same job creators that to be the key to America's success are the reason we have "illegals" in the country...to keep wages and earnings artificially depressed.

 

[augHAWK]

There are many respected constitutional scholars who believe that the term "jurisdiction" as intended to be used in the 14th Amendment would not provide that every child simply born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. Is the cold born in America to a British diplomat a U.S. citizen? Was that the intent of the 14th Amendment?

 

[joelbc1]

There are many respected constitutional scholars who believe that the term "jurisdiction" as intended to be used in the 14th Amendment would not provide that every child simply born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. Is the cold born in America to a British diplomat a U.S. citizen? Was that the intent of the 14th Amendment?

Then why was the amendment written that way? And voted on that way....And affirmed with that language? Are yu saying that "we the people" were hoodwinked? Perhaps then "these constitutional scholars" ought to start a movement to amend the 14th Amendment.
My history TAUGHT me that the main reason for the amendment was to remove all doubts regarding the status of the recently freed slaves. If that is the case, it is pretty straight forward and simple.

 

[Lone Clone]

There are many respected constitutional scholars who believe that the term "jurisdiction" as intended to be used in the 14th Amendment would not provide that every child simply born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. Is the cold born in America to a British diplomat a U.S. citizen? Was that the intent of the 14th Amendment?

I think that's a bad example, because it's exactly who the founders were thinking of when they wrote it: Children born here of parents who were more than likely British.

 

[augHAWK]

What? I don't agree. Regardless, they weren't thinking of the children of British ambassadors.

 

[TJ8869]

I think that's a bad example, because it's exactly who the founders were thinking of when they wrote it: Children born here of parents who were more than likely British.

The 14th Amendment was written in 1866, long after the Founding Fathers were dead.

 

[joelbc1]

The 14th Amendment was written in 1866, long after the Founding Fathers were dead.

A very soon (3 years) after Lincoln made his "Emancipation Proclamation"........

 

[naturalmwa]

There are many respected constitutional scholars who believe that the term "jurisdiction" as intended to be used in the 14th Amendment would not provide that every child simply born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. Is the cold born in America to a British diplomat a U.S. citizen? Was that the intent of the 14th Amendment?

Wasn't this point already addressed. The diplomate isn't under US jurisdiction, our laws don't apply to the diplomate, thus their kid isn't a citizen. Our laws do apply to the immigrant, thus they are under our jurisdiction, thus their kids born here are citizens. If you want to argue for a change in that policy, thats a fine debate we could have. But if you simply want to argue the debate is settled already in your favor based on a twisted interpretation of the 14th, I think you're on thin ground.

 

[Bob Pelini_]

"freebies"? Really....I don't see it here in DSM. What "freebies" do they get? A lot these folks need to remember that but for the grace of God, it could be them. Here I see a lot more worthless white crap walking the streets than I do "illegals".....
I understand there is an angry electorate out there Tenn.........However, what I see and hear from this electorate isn't very smart......and surely not very tolerant. People honestly think folks wanna be poor? addicted? living off charity and pay check to pay check? The "illegal" threat is a scare tactic that is the product of our corporate and business community. If these folks would follow the laws in existance, "illegals" wouldn't be here because there would be no work for them. And ofcourse, a lot of menial, low paying jobs would be paying more money to get done.......but that would mean businesses and corporations would not have all the monies they now enjoy...... The same job creators that to be the key to America's success are the reason we have "illegals" in the country...to keep wages and earnings artificially depressed.

How long does it take for you to dream this stuff up? These illegals are leeches, they leech off America. My God I hope Trump wins and we can send them all back the same way they came and that includes mama, papa, grandma, grandpa and little Pepino.

 

[naturalmwa]

How long does it take for you to dream this stuff up? These illegals are leeches, they leech off America. My God I hope Trump wins and we can send them all back the same way they came and that includes mama, papa, grandma, grandpa and little Pepino.

Please let us keep Pepino.

 

[theIowaHawk]

In my defense, it was the closest I could come to making an analogy stupid enough to compare to your statement. You actually justified illegal immigration by saying they don't want to leave. And you said it in the context of who is our government to tell them they can't stay.

No, I did not, that is an absurd mischaracterization of my post.

My post was entirely about jurisdiction, which you seem to not be able to discuss.

 

[theIowaHawk]

In order to understand what our government meant when they wrote those words nearly 150 years ago, we can examine the Civil Right Act of 1866, which was a precursor to the 14th Amendment. It specified that anyone "born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens". A pregnant woman who sneaks across the border from Mexico is subject to a foreign power, viz. Mexico.

I think it's reasonable to believe our government did not intend to reward illegal immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship. And I think it's reasonable for the SCOTUS to examine the 14th Amendment and determine whether that is the case.

Except you don't actually support your claim, you are entirely conclusory. They are "subject to a foreign power..." is your entire response.

Why? They left that jurisdiction with no plans to return...why are they still subject? And if they are, why are unborn children?

If you leave Iowa and go to Nebraska you are now subject to the jurisdiction of Nebraska, your children would be Nebraskan, Nebraska courts hold jurisdiction over the child.

Those still "tied" to their former nation are not, diplomats, consuls, dignitaries, etc. They are here specifically under the jurisdiction, the protection, of their nation.

Your side can certainly be argued, but simplistic conclusions don't win anything.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Also it would surprise that it "wasn't their intent" considering we had no/little immigration policies. It is more reasonable, imo, to think that they would have absolutely included these children...because they weren't stopping their parents from entering.

If you mean that the world has changed, sure, fine, change the Amendment to reflect changes.

 

[TJ8869]

If you leave Iowa and go to Nebraska you are now subject to the jurisdiction of Nebraska, your children would be Nebraskan, Nebraska courts hold jurisdiction over the child.

Those still "tied" to their former nation are not, diplomats, consuls, dignitaries, etc. They are here specifically under the jurisdiction, the protection, of their nation.

Your side can certainly be argued, but simplistic conclusions don't win anything.

The difference, since it apparently escapes you, is that it's perfectly legal to move from Iowa to Nebraska.