Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't H

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:15:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

I actually side with him on 93% of issues. http://www.isidewith.com...
I should probably update it though since I've become more moderate on immigration.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:32:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:15:18 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

I actually side with him on 93% of issues. http://www.isidewith.com...
I should probably update it though since I've become more moderate on immigration.

Varrack, the problem is this guy is a lightweight. I posted a poll asking if he could win a debate on this site. I just don't think he could. His arguments are weak, and his understanding of even basic constitutional issues lower than I would have thought.

He, in short, SHOULD be an embarrassment to all smart conservatives like yourself. His only success so far? Showing me is dimmer that I ever thought
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:01:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

I didn't know he said that. That might be the stupidest thing he's said... this week. I'm not sure if he realizes that the 14th amendment is (a crucial) part of the Constitution upon which laws are based, not simply a statute.

I generally find Mr. Trump's views on immigration, as with his comments on immigrants, detestable. But this man has an appeal with the GOP for whatever reason. My theory is that he appeals to some pseudo-populist (read: astroturf) streak within his own party. Ezra Klein wrote an article the other day arguing that Trump is basically what a "moderate" Republican looks like today. Yes, on immigration his stance is as right-wing as it comes, but he's moderate on trade, healthcare, taxes, and social issues. The one thing I like about him is that he actually discusses, though not as fervently as Mr. Sanders, campaign finance reform, and the fact that he as an affluent businessman basically bought out both parties.

The other alternative is that he's a racist and a misogynist, and that he's appealing to people who are likewise racist and misogynist. I suppose that I'd prefer to be more optimistic than that.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:07:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:32:04 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:15:18 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

I actually side with him on 93% of issues. http://www.isidewith.com...
I should probably update it though since I've become more moderate on immigration.

Varrack, the problem is this guy is a lightweight. I posted a poll asking if he could win a debate on this site. I just don't think he could. His arguments are weak, and his understanding of even basic constitutional issues lower than I would have thought.

He, in short, SHOULD be an embarrassment to all smart conservatives like yourself. His only success so far? Showing me is dimmer that I ever thought

I don't take him seriously. He's said some pretty ridiculous things already and it's not even 2016 yet. I watched part of the first GOP debate of the race that aired a week ago and he's just..wow.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:20:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't take him seriously. He's said some pretty ridiculous things already and it's not even 2016 yet. I watched part of the first GOP debate of the race that aired a week ago and he's just..wow.

Yeah, he is just... wow. It is a embarrassment to ME that one of our parties is supporting this guy for even a second.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:46:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:32:04 AM, TBR wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:15:18 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

I actually side with him on 93% of issues. http://www.isidewith.com...
I should probably update it though since I've become more moderate on immigration.

Varrack, the problem is this guy is a lightweight. I posted a poll asking if he could win a debate on this site. I just don't think he could. His arguments are weak, and his understanding of even basic constitutional issues lower than I would have thought.

He, in short, SHOULD be an embarrassment to all smart conservatives like yourself. His only success so far? Showing me is dimmer that I ever thought

Too bad the general voter is nothing like a person on this site.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:56:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

I watched the video, I think he said his lawyers were going to test the case whether or not the 14th amendment applies if both parents are in the country illegally.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:34:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

@TBR
How stupid he is? Maybe we should be asking the same question of you. Come on TBR, I thought I already educated you on the value of research, reading and reading comprehension. I guess just as Trump is educating the government and all those constitutional lawyers, I will need to educate you...once again.

AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 1: Passed By Congress June 13th, 1866. Ratified July 9th, 1868

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

EXPLANATION

1) Proponents of amnesty and open borders look at section 1 listed above and do 1 of 2 things:

1.1) They read the first 9 words All persons born or naturalized in the United States and ignore the rest
1.2) The read it through fully but incorrectly define the word "Jurisdiction" as a geographical term. The correct, legal definition is provided below, under the section "DEFINITIONS"

2) The proponents then do something else very interesting: they fail to do any research at all; not on the intent, the definitions, the time period, the reason the amendment was authored, why they go to work every day, why the sky is blue, why powerful men used to wear wigs and makeup...sorry I'm getting a bit off track

2.1) Coincidentally, you liberals on this site always disregard me and try and make me look like a fool when I say you're wrong and tell you to do your own research. Well, tie your shoes tight; I don't want you losing them as research knocks you on your butt starting.....now:

3) The 14th Amendment, Section 1 was primarily authored by Congressman John A. Bingham and introduced in Congress by Senator Jacob Howard to ensure recently freed slaves were considered citizens and no state could refuse them rights afforded to them as such.

4) To quell concerns in congress of vague language being represented by the 14th Amendment, while presenting the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard CLEARLY defined the intent; and in doing so, for the first time in American Constitutional history, gave clear definition to the word citizenship. This can be found a bit lower under the section "DEFINITIONS"

4.1) The important piece here of his definition of citizen is: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

5) Senator Edward Cowan reaffirmed Sen. Jacob Howard's definition of "citizen" by stating: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word[...]

SUPREME COURT RULINGS

1) Abstract of Rulings -- A person holding allegiance to another nation, sovereign state, or other recognized group not directly mentioned; is unable to attain citizenship. In order to be a naturalized citizen, a person must pledge full, direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. and be completely subject to its jurisdiction.

2) Elk v. Wilkins 1884 -- the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

2.1) The court stated 'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States ... although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government...'

3) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898] -- Wong Kim Ark, a child born in CA to legal Chinese immigrants was determined to be a U.S. citizen as his parents were legal immigrants at the time of his birth. Legal Immigrant defined in DEFINITIONS section.

3.1) This case made the clear distinction between children born from illegal immigrants as opposed to the children born to legal immigrants

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1) 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves

2) As the amendment lists The U.S. before State, the citizen my first be a citizen of the nation before he can be a citizen of a state

3) The 14th Amendment states "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this was intended to exlude American-born persons from authentic citizenship whose allegiance to the U.S. was not complete

4) The intent and definition of citizen was made clear by Sen. Howard and affirmed by Sen. Cowan

5) Elk v. Wilkins & U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark are two notable Supreme Course Cases making the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as well as the process of citizenship

DEFINITIONS

Jurisdiction -- The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law [...]

Citizen -- "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Legal Immigrant -- Is subject to the jurisdiction of his birth country. Meaning in his native land (China for example) he can still vote, join the military, attend public school, own property, etc. For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant.
The_American_Sniper
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:00:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

It's not really a wonder why the world thinks we are stupid.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 5:24:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:00:52 PM, The_American_Sniper wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

It's not really a wonder why the world thinks we are stupid.

It's one thing for the world to "think" we are stupid, it is quite another thing to be taken advantage of time and again in foreign negotiations and led about like a puppet. That's actual stupidity and incompetence, not perception.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:20:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:06:39 AM, TBR wrote:
"Trump to O'Reilly: The 14th Amendment Won't Hold Up In Court"

Do supporters understand how stupid this man is?

Hmm, nah,he didn't say.

/Thread
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:23:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Trump didn't say the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. Just the usual lies and deceit to expect from the pathetic news media in this country. What he did say is that it does not protect the children of people who are here illegally in the first place.