Trump will sign Executive Order revoking birthright citizenship. And, of course, lies about it!

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Excellent example! Scalia's ruling in Heller was entirely based on "intent", just as a new ruling (stemming from the inevitable, reactionary, lib-retard challenge to Trump's EO) on the 14th Amendment will be based on "intent".

Lol....no. Scalia took a plain text reading and gave a clinic on english grammer in his ruling.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Excellent example! Scalia's ruling in Heller was entirely based on "intent", just as a new ruling (stemming from the inevitable, reactionary, lib-retard challenge to Trump's EO) on the 14th Amendment will be based on "intent".

The courts will reject the EO. As they should.

Lindsey knows that and is preparing legislation on this matter.

This is just Trump playing politics right before the election. Seems most have already seen through the bs.

But evidently not here on eccie!

[Yssup Rider]

Not as long as there's a breath left in Alex Jones's lungs...

[grean]

Originally Posted by WTF

The courts will reject the EO. As they should.

Lindsey knows that and is preparing legislation on this matter.

This is just Trump playing politics right before the election. Seems most have already seen through the bs.

But evidently not here on eccie!

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/413832-graham-to-introduce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship

This is how to do it!
And it's a massive undertaking. Two-thirds of Congress PLUS ratification by three-quarters of the states.

This is why I speak about intent. It's hard to discuss the intent outside of what is actually in the document.

The wording has to be such that so many people have to be behind. Mr. Howard's intent didn't make it into the constitution because at the time, for what ever reason, that wording did not get the support it needed to become ratified.

I think today, a well and carefully worded amendment might have a chance of passing and placing some restrictions on birthright citizenship.

I wonder what Mr. Cruz, would think? How would he word it, given his background(born in Canada) that may differ from Graham's.

What will the text be that is finally put up for a vote?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

As written, the ammendment says if you're born on us soil, you are a citizen.

That's not what it says.

And that's not even the current law.

The amendment WAS WRITTEN AND PASSED to address THE ISSUE of slaves being forcefully brought to North America into what was then the United States (including her territories) and those born to those forced to come here TO ASSURE THEY WERE CITIZENS and enjoyed all the rights and privileges of U.S. CITIZENS.

THAT'S IT!

And the SCOTUS has NOT published an OPINION on the interpretation of the clause you failed to mention as it relates to the legitimacy of the parents (or parent) who conceived the unborn child being in this country and/or whether or not the unborn child was even conceived by the parents while on U.S. soil legitimately and/or voluntarily as opposed to being kidnapped and forced to come here.

Liberals want to twist the purpose and meaning of amendments to suit their agenda. As the saying goes:

"The shoe is on the other foot soon enough"! The "soon enough" is NOW!

Trump just took the "immigration issue" off the table for the Liberals next week!!!

The Republicans in Congress took the "pre-existing condition" health care issue off the table earlier.

All they have left is: "impeachment"!!!! ala "Pelosi and Waters"!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

As to what Graham thinks ... only Graham knows ... but that's not what he said.

Legislation passed by Congress makes it more likely that the next POTUS won't rescind the EO.

Something Obaminable didn't factor into his efforts ... because ...

... he figured HillariousNoMore would get elected !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

Lol....no. Scalia took a plain text reading and gave a clinic on english grammer in his ruling.

That's an overly simplistic summary, because Heller addressed "intent": it addresses "why there was a call for the 2nd Amendment".

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through thelate 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(Heller)

Originally Posted by WTF

The courts will reject the EO. As they should.

Lindsey knows that and is preparing legislation on this matter.

This is just Trump playing politics right before the election. Seems most have already seen through the bs.

But evidently not here on eccie!

SCOTUS will take up the case and reverse Brennan. The EO will become a footnote.

Originally Posted by grean

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/413832-graham-to-introduce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship

This is how to do it!
And it's a massive undertaking. Two-thirds of Congress PLUS ratification by three-quarters of the states.

This is why I speak about intent. It's hard to discuss the intent outside of what is actually in the document.

The wording has to be such that so many people have to be behind. Mr. Howard's intent didn't make it into the constitution because at the time, for what ever reason, that wording did not get the support it needed to become ratified.

I think today, a well and carefully worded amendment might have a chance of passing and placing some restrictions on birthright citizenship.

I wonder what Mr. Cruz, would think? How would he word it, given his background(born in Canada) that may differ from Graham's.

What will the text be that is finally put up for a vote?

No. This will be like Brown vs Board of Education reversing Homer vs Plessy: a good decision reversing a bad precedent.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by Budman

Legally is the key to all of this debate. My ancestors were here legally. Ending birthright citizenship & chain migration would most definitely slow down the illegal immigration. It would not stop it altogether but it would put a dent in it.

Exactamundo. IF we remove the benefits these illegal aliens get, when they get here. Such as Birthright citiznship, welfare and other handouts, a GOOD AMOUNT OF THEM< will stop coming here.

Originally Posted by grean

Of course not. Controlling who get's into the country is absolutely necessary and right.

And most importantly, its a DUTY OF the president, in his roll of defending our nation.!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Exactamundo. IF we remove the benefits these illegal aliens get, when they get here. Such as Birthright citiznship, welfare and other handouts, a GOOD AMOUNT OF THEM< will stop coming here.


And most importantly, its a DUTY OF the president, in his roll of defending our nation.!

You do realize that, by law, illegal immigrants are not allowed to receive benefits such as welfare, medicare, social security, CHIP or food stamps.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b010527d6780b0

If you take the time to read the article, yes, undocumented immigrants do receive SOME handouts but very minor ones. Yes, they currently receive birthright citizenship but I doubt that is why they are risking crossing the border illegally.

[LexusLover]

As people in this country struggle to read the minds of illegal aliens as they ponder whether or not to pay 1,000's of dollars to some asshole recruiting them to travel to the Rio Grande or other border toward the west and risk being apprehended and put in jail/prison along with the children they drag along for the journey .... not to mention being raped, mutilated, and/or killed ....

... and as the Liberals pretend to know what they are "thinking" ...

... one ought to factor in what those poor souls are told in order to entice them to part with (in some instances) 5-10 YEARS of wages ...

... and convince them that the "investment" in MONEY AND RISKS is worth the potential of success in the trek they have planned to a country and place they no little about other than what they "hear" from rumors or "see" on TV commercials!

Probably 99% of these pundits have never sat (or stood for that matter) and discussed their "vision" of the U.S. and their expectations if they decided to make the effort to relocate (whether legally or illegally).

Their "opinions" are based on pure speculation.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You do realize that, by law, illegal immigrants are not allowed to receive benefits such as welfare, medicare, social security, CHIP or food stamps.

But I do realize that the "law" doesn't matter to you unless a cop says it is against the "law" and then it is a violation of the "law." Otherwise, according to you, until a "cop" says so, its' not! So their receipt of "benefits" is lawful, according to you!

SCOTUS and The Travel Ban

07-03-2017, 02:14 PM #96
SpeedRacerXXXValued Poster


“.... IF you want to gig me for driving 5 MPH over the speed limit while only on specific highways go ahead. If the police accept me doing it then I don't consider it breaking the law.

And that's exactly the topic of the thread from which the conversation came!!!!!!!!! "IMMIGRATION"!!!!

[Yssup Rider]

Holy chit, LL!

I didn't realize THAT was what's going on!

This is some scary shit. Happy Halloween!

[bigwill832]

I doubt he's going to do anything like that. Trump is trolling the shit out of the Dems and the media. He knows he can make them run any direction he wants by just saying he's going to do something. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I do find it fucking hilarious how easily he manipulates his opponents.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bigwill832

I doubt he's going to do anything like that. Trump is trolling the shit out of the Dems and the media. He knows he can make them run any direction he wants by just saying he's going to do something. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I do find it fucking hilarious how easily he manipulates his opponents.

Not as easily as he manipulates his loyalists.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigwill832

I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I do find it fucking hilarious how easily he manipulates his opponents.

.... and speaking of "hilarious" ...

.... they don't even realize they are being manipulated!!!!

[grean]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You do realize that, by law, illegal immigrants are not allowed to receive benefits such as welfare, medicare, social security, CHIP or food stamps.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b010527d6780b0

If you take the time to read the article, yes, undocumented immigrants do receive SOME handouts but very minor ones. Yes, they currently receive birthright citizenship but I doubt that is why they are risking crossing the border illegally.

Illegal or Citizens, children, per the 1982 Brennan ruling, must receive Education which Texas was trying to withhold as was sued for. That is pricy.

The other items, yeah, they don't receive.

O'conner & Rehnquist and Burger all dissented. They say it was probably smart to educate anyone who live here but not unconstitutional to deny illegals education.