Today in Trump's new term as President

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 146
Posts: 4562
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2716

Post by Jusme » Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:38 am

I don't play video games, does it mean we are advancing several levels, if we encounter two NPC in just a few minutes?
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

bbhack
Member
Posts in topic: 43
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: San Antonio Area

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2717

Post by bbhack » Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:50 am

The president’s proclivity to twist data and fabricate stories is on full display at his rallies. He has his greatest hits: 120 times he had falsely said he passed the biggest tax cut in history, 80 times he has asserted that the U.S. economy today is the best in history and 74 times he has falsely said his border wall is already being built. (Congress has allocated only $1.6 billion for fencing, but Trump also frequently mentioned additional funding that has not yet been appropriated.)
In the first example, the author assumes the definition of "biggest", a very imprecise word, and then says that the recent tax cuts are not the "biggest". Almost every one of wapo's "lies" is like this. No need to go on.
NRA Life Member


Topic author
philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 509
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2718

Post by philip964 » Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:01 pm

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/su ... nder-trump

Record employment 12th time under Trump.

NPC’s out in strength here today.

More winning. Trump approval at 51%.

User avatar

TXHawk
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:58 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2719

Post by TXHawk » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm

philbo wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:33 pm
TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
I am not sure how name calling of The President bolsters your case but civil discourse is an altogether different topic. So to the topic at hand. The 14th Amendment does not establish in Constitutional verbiage birthright citizenship nor was it intended to. The only Supreme Court Ruling on the matter I am aware of is Elk vs Wilkins circa 1884 which clearly affirmed the status of the parents did in fact determine the citizenship or eligibility of the child.
Elk v. Wilkens is not the only case dealing with this issue, nor is your case as on point as your conclusion states.

The Elk case dealt specifically with native americans present within the US borders in the 19th century. Elk brought suit stating that he should be granted the privilege of citizenship based on the 14th amendment and his being born within the US. The holding in this case did not rest on who Elks parents were, but rather the fact that he had been born into a tribe that was recognized as an alien nation by the US. Congress that previously concluded that the "Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 Thus, the members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. The ruling in Elk supported the previous Civil Rights Act of 1866 which specifically stated "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." Again, the ruling in Elk relied on the earlier Civil Rights Act to uphold it finding, not the status of Elks parents. Elk remained law in it's application to Native Americans until it was overturned by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
Keeping in mind when the 14th amendment was passed there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant established by legal language in the Federal Statutes.
I agree that it did not exist as a legal term in the 19th century, but all the hall marks of racism, prejudice, nationalism and xenophobia directed against present day illegal immigrants were being levied against the immigrants of their times and justified to deny them the right to vote. Political Parties thrived on fear of immigrants, especially those from Ireland and China. This is best reserved for a separate discussion, but fear and paranoia of immigrants did play a part in 19th century law, as much as it does today.

The cases directly related to the concept of jus soli grew out a series of appellate cases that was eventually decided by SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1889. These cases directly commented on the status of parents as related to birthright citizenship, not Elk. as you previously concluded.

The anti-immigrant attitude towards Chinese immigrants in the 19th and 20th century can not be understated. This hostility towards immigrants of Asian descent was codified in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which severely restricted the rights of Chinese immigrants to enter the country, and made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from obtaining US citizenship.

The question of whether the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to persons born in the United States to Chinese immigrants first came before the courts in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Sing. Mr. Sing was born in California in 1870 to Chinese immigrants who were not US citizens. As an adult Look Tin Sing was barred from rentry to the US in California because he did not have the documentation required for immigrants. Look's case was taken to the appeals court in 1884. After inviting comment from all lawyers, the judges focused on the meaning of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof phrase of the Citizenship Clause, and subsequently held that Look was indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth despite the alien status of his parents, and on this basis ordered U.S. officials to recognize Look as a citizen and allow him to enter the United States. This case was not appealed. A similar conclusion was reached by the federal circuit court for Oregon in the 1888 cases of Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee. In an 1892 case, Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., the federal appeals court in California (relying on the above cases) concluded that a Chinese man would have been recognized as a United States citizen if he could have presented satisfactory evidence that he had in fact been born in the U.S. None of these cases were appealed to SCOTUS, but each directly dealt with Birthright Citizenship under the 14th amendment.

The case that is directly on point, and of which you presume to be ignorant of, followed the fact patterns of the above cases and was heard by SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898. In a 6–2 decision the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."
TXHawk wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:00 am
Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated:

"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."
While Howard did state the above it has been hashed to pieces by proponents on both sides without fully answering the question. "Is that a list of three different categories (foreigners, aliens, and people from the families of ambassadors and ministers), in which case all kids of foreigners and aliens would be excluded from birthright citizenship? Or is “aliens” used simply as a synonym for “foreigners” and meant to be read in apposition, in which case the exclusion is limited to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers? (“Foreigners—that is, aliens—who belong to the families . . .” For a very good discussion of BOTH sides of this issue, read here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... quirement/

But back to the original point.... if tRump believes he can legally upend the 14th amendment, federal law, and the previous holdings of SCOTUS with an executive order, he doesn't understand what he is talking about. A law passed by congress, and all the appeals that would necessarily follow, may lead to an opinion different from the holding in Wong, but not an executive order by itself.
Again, your ad homenim is unnecessary. Frankly it weakens your argument because it clearly points out a means to an end bias rather than an objective look at the issue from an honest position of scholarship. However, I will address the case you cited. I was actually waiting for it as it is the case most cited by those arguing the 14th addresses this issue although they as you have connect it erroneously. In short the Sing case addressed his citizenship as he was born from parents who were LEGALLY residing here even though they themselves were not eligible for citizenship. It really should not need to be pointed out there is a vast difference between legal residency and illegal residency. So in his case the 14th amendment correctly addressed his citizenship eligibility. You are correct in pointing out the Elk case dealt with a Native American. The connection you failed to make was while the SCOTUS ruling in that case rules on the exclusivity of Natives, meaning they were already here prior to the rule of law currently followed, it and that is a vastly different scenario that currently being discussed but none the less still set precedent. Although you did address in mostly correct fashion the background of racism surrounding these cases you completely either failed or chose to ignore what the author of the 14th amendment very specifically stated as of the intent, inclusions, and exclusions. That cannot be ignored unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship.
Last edited by TXHawk on Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.
Thomas Jefferson


Redneck_Buddha
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: Little Elm, TX

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2720

Post by Redneck_Buddha » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:19 pm

TreyHouston wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:43 am
Jusme wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:32 am
What did the NPC say? :headscratch
“Trump bad, illegals good” :yawn
Get it right guys! It's "Orange man bad. Orange man racist."

Or don't forget "Drrrrummmmmphhhh and the Drummmpppphhhhtards!"
Stop slackin', start packin'.
National Rifle Association Life Member; Gun Owners of America Member
"Live by G-d's law, or die by man's law."


Redneck_Buddha
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: Little Elm, TX

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2721

Post by Redneck_Buddha » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:21 pm

dale blanker wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:34 am
philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
President Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days... In the seven weeks leading up the midterm elections, the president made 1,419 false or misleading claims — an average of 30 a day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 47a79e7f90
Ah yes, but nothing else matters if we get our tax cut and our anti-abortion SCOTUS. I recall Dan Quayle being widely ridiculed in the media and by many in the general public, both in the U.S. and overseas, as an intellectual lightweight and generally incompetent. He may be best know for his misspelling of the word "potato". Now the president can say any old thing and it's all ok. It used to be that there was the 10% of people that were ill-informed or easily fooled but now the number is much higher. So much for science, morality, ethics, intellect, civility, truthfulness, even ideology (conservatives are leaving the GOP!) and our country.

Late night variety shows, especially Colbert and Meyers, go overboard in their humor about the president but they do help end one's day to not take our decline too seriously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xEz1uSedEM :lol:
Ha! You and your ilk are fine ones to lecture on civility! :thumbs2:
Stop slackin', start packin'.
National Rifle Association Life Member; Gun Owners of America Member
"Live by G-d's law, or die by man's law."


Grumpy1993
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:13 pm
Location: TEXAS!

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2722

Post by Grumpy1993 » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:36 pm

spectre wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:07 am
philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
Good! The military shouldn't engage in police activities in the USA nor "police actions" overseas. :clapping:

First and foremost, the military should defend the country from foreign invasion. The military may fight them "over there" so we don't have to face them here, but if they get here, fight the invaders on the border. If they overrun the borders (e.g. WW2 Eastern Front) the job of the military is to push them back. Kill or drive out the invaders.

That is the purpose of the military.
:iagree:

And it is the right and duty of the militia to fight invaders at the border and anywhere on US soil.
A Dead White Man wrote:We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender


philbo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 150
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2723

Post by philbo » Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:57 pm

TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
Again, your ad homenim is unnecessary. Frankly it weakens your argument because it clearly points out a means to an end bias rather than an objective look at the issue from an honest position of scholarship. However, I will address the case you cited. I was actually waiting for it as it is the case most cited by those arguing the 14th addresses this issue although they as you have connect it erroneously. In short the Sing case addressed his citizenship as he was born from parents who were LEGALLY residing here even though they themselves were not eligible for citizenship. It really should not need to be pointed out there is a vast difference between legal residency and illegal residency. So in his case the 14th amendment correctly addressed his citizenship eligibility.
If you have taken that the position that the Look Tin Sing case was the best case on point, then you have mistaken the point of the entire post. Look Tin Sing was one of a series of appellate cases dealing with the birthright citizenship issue. Followed by Ex parte Chin King , Ex parte Chan San Hee and Gee Fook Sing v. U.S. The case directly on point to the issue is the one SCOTUS heard interpreting the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. The one case you failed to address in either your original post or rebuttal is United States v. Wong Kim Ark . It was this case which directly dealt with the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof in both the 14th Amendment and the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866.Your failure to reposnd to this case and it's holding which is directly on point. This case cannot be ignored, unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship. One of the passages most directly on point follows:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42. United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 682. (and if you've read much law, you'll recognize the legal cite provided.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
You are correct in pointing out the Elk case dealt with a Native American. The connection you failed to make was while the SCOTUS ruling in that case rules on the exclusivity of Natives, meaning they were already here prior to the rule of law currently followed, it and that is a vastly different scenario that currently being discussed but none the less still set precedent.

Wong Kim Ark directly referenced not just Elk, but all of the slaughterhouse cases in reaching it's conclusion. An educated legal analysis needs to refer to this case or an argument on this issue is in vain by you or any other talking head on Fox news.
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
Although you did address in mostly correct fashion the background of racism surrounding these cases you completely either failed or chose to ignore what the author of the 14th amendment very specifically stated as of the intent, inclusions, and exclusions. That cannot be ignored unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship.
As stated previously the phrase inserted by Mr. Howrd is where the debate should be centered. To conclude without supporting argument that only one interpretation of that phrase must now be considered, in the face of previous SCOTUS decisions which were directly on point and ignored in your response, offers nothing to your argument. To take them out of the context of the congressional debates is definitely not helpful to your argument. A careful reading of the original debates will reveal a pattern from Howard, as well from Senator Trumball who worked on the 14th, and drafted the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 from which Howrd paraphrased the indicated passage in the 14th amendment. In each case these men repeatedly talked about all immigrants, not just some, having citizenship at birth despite the standing of their parents. If you can come to a different conclusion from the original transcript provided below, I'll be interested in reading it.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=603
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... &recNum=11
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=605

The biggest issue with your response is the total lack of reference to the underlying issue, which is whether previous holdings of SCOTUS, laws passed by Congress, and the 14th Amendment can be overturned by a presidential directive. Congress may be able to pass legislation for SCOTUS to subsequently review, but not likely any other way. A failure to address the underlying issue is not the sign of a serious scholar.

User avatar

dale blanker
Banned
Posts in topic: 156
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 1:49 am

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2724

Post by dale blanker » Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:45 pm

Redneck_Buddha wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:21 pm
dale blanker wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:34 am
philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
President Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days... In the seven weeks leading up the midterm elections, the president made 1,419 false or misleading claims — an average of 30 a day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 47a79e7f90
Ah yes, but nothing else matters if we get our tax cut and our anti-abortion SCOTUS. I recall Dan Quayle being widely ridiculed in the media and by many in the general public, both in the U.S. and overseas, as an intellectual lightweight and generally incompetent. He may be best know for his misspelling of the word "potato". Now the president can say any old thing and it's all ok. It used to be that there was the 10% of people that were ill-informed or easily fooled but now the number is much higher. So much for science, morality, ethics, intellect, civility, truthfulness, even ideology (conservatives are leaving the GOP!) and our country.

Late night variety shows, especially Colbert and Meyers, go overboard in their humor about the president but they do help end one's day to not take our decline too seriously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xEz1uSedEM :lol:
Ha! You and your ilk are fine ones to lecture on civility! :thumbs2:
Ok, but not science, morality, ethics, intellect, truthfulness, or ideology? Oh well, 7 out of 8 is good. Thanks :tiphat:
"Fellowship, Leadership, Scholarship, Service." Anyone?

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 2540
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2725

Post by G26ster » Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:11 pm

dale blanker wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:45 pm
Redneck_Buddha wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:21 pm
dale blanker wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:34 am
philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
President Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days... In the seven weeks leading up the midterm elections, the president made 1,419 false or misleading claims — an average of 30 a day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 47a79e7f90
Ah yes, but nothing else matters if we get our tax cut and our anti-abortion SCOTUS. I recall Dan Quayle being widely ridiculed in the media and by many in the general public, both in the U.S. and overseas, as an intellectual lightweight and generally incompetent. He may be best know for his misspelling of the word "potato". Now the president can say any old thing and it's all ok. It used to be that there was the 10% of people that were ill-informed or easily fooled but now the number is much higher. So much for science, morality, ethics, intellect, civility, truthfulness, even ideology (conservatives are leaving the GOP!) and our country.

Late night variety shows, especially Colbert and Meyers, go overboard in their humor about the president but they do help end one's day to not take our decline too seriously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xEz1uSedEM :lol:
Ha! You and your ilk are fine ones to lecture on civility! :thumbs2:
Ok, but not science, morality, ethics, intellect, truthfulness, or ideology? Oh well, 7 out of 8 is good. Thanks :tiphat:
So let's take that one at a time:

1. Science - Science has been wrong countless time over the ages. Science is ever changing. The universe is expanding. No its contracting, etc, etc.

2. Morality - Killing babies in the womb, even when they can feel pain, is very moral, right?

3. Ethics - Bribes and kickbacks abound on both sides of the aisle, so that includes Democrats.

4.Intellect - Yeah, Maxine Waters, and Rep. Hank Johnson who said Guam would "tip over" are Intellectual giants.

5.Truthfulness - No liberal pols lie - Yeah right. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

6. Ideology - OK, you win, only liberal ideology is allowed. Conservative, libertarian, etc. thought is not allowed. Otherwise we will shout you down, prevent you from speaking on campus, assault your rallies with black clad masked, armed goons, and destroy all property we can.

Yes, you liberals have it all. :tiphat:

.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2726

Post by srothstein » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm

philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 am
But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58
I strongly suggest that you do better research on your points. When you repeat false claims it really hurts your credibility in all other arguments. The military is not prohibited from all police activities in the US. The law prohibiting this is called the Posse Comitatus Act and it is in the US code in Title 18, section 1385. The wording of the law forbids the military from being used as a posse except for where authorized by the Congress (among other exceptions).

One of the known exceptions, for example, is that the military can be used to help enforce drug laws. This was how the military was used in several recent encounters against US citizens, with the most notable in our area being in Waco against the Branch Davidians (the ATF told the AG and our Governor that they suspected them of having drugs). Another one, used and favored by the Democratic Party, is that the President may order the military out to enforce federal law. The example of this being favors by the Democrats is when the 101st Airborne Division was ordered out to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Ark in 1957.

I could be wrong, but I understand after some very brief research that the deployment of military troops to the border to enforce federal law is within the legal authority of the president. If you want to argue against it, you might use the example of what happened when Marines were assigned to patrol the border. That resulted in them shooting Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., a US citizen on his own property. You might not want to use it as an example though, because that was in 1997 when a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) assigned active duty troops to patrol our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in while carrying drugs. Kind of cuts against your argument of it being illegal to use troops to enforce the law.
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 2540
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2727

Post by G26ster » Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:23 pm

Oops! I left out some stuff Dale:

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

" If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

And last, but certainly not least, from Politifact, most beloved site by the left:

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ing/false/

User avatar

bbhack
Member
Posts in topic: 43
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: San Antonio Area

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2728

Post by bbhack » Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:45 am

Nice lesson about WWI Russian assault units AND Trump, if you can spare 9 minutes. No profanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcmBp7bRSU

Wictor was kicked off Twitter. He went to Gab, then Gab got shut down. He went to Facebook, and got kicked off a couple of days ago. You can't make this stuff up.
NRA Life Member

User avatar

TXHawk
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:58 pm

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2729

Post by TXHawk » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:39 pm

philbo wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:57 pm
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
Again, your ad homenim is unnecessary. Frankly it weakens your argument because it clearly points out a means to an end bias rather than an objective look at the issue from an honest position of scholarship. However, I will address the case you cited. I was actually waiting for it as it is the case most cited by those arguing the 14th addresses this issue although they as you have connect it erroneously. In short the Sing case addressed his citizenship as he was born from parents who were LEGALLY residing here even though they themselves were not eligible for citizenship. It really should not need to be pointed out there is a vast difference between legal residency and illegal residency. So in his case the 14th amendment correctly addressed his citizenship eligibility.
If you have taken that the position that the Look Tin Sing case was the best case on point, then you have mistaken the point of the entire post. Look Tin Sing was one of a series of appellate cases dealing with the birthright citizenship issue. Followed by Ex parte Chin King , Ex parte Chan San Hee and Gee Fook Sing v. U.S. The case directly on point to the issue is the one SCOTUS heard interpreting the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. The one case you failed to address in either your original post or rebuttal is United States v. Wong Kim Ark . It was this case which directly dealt with the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof in both the 14th Amendment and the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866.Your failure to reposnd to this case and it's holding which is directly on point. This case cannot be ignored, unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship. One of the passages most directly on point follows:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42. United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 682. (and if you've read much law, you'll recognize the legal cite provided.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
You are correct in pointing out the Elk case dealt with a Native American. The connection you failed to make was while the SCOTUS ruling in that case rules on the exclusivity of Natives, meaning they were already here prior to the rule of law currently followed, it and that is a vastly different scenario that currently being discussed but none the less still set precedent.

Wong Kim Ark directly referenced not just Elk, but all of the slaughterhouse cases in reaching it's conclusion. An educated legal analysis needs to refer to this case or an argument on this issue is in vain by you or any other talking head on Fox news.
TXHawk wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:17 pm
Although you did address in mostly correct fashion the background of racism surrounding these cases you completely either failed or chose to ignore what the author of the 14th amendment very specifically stated as of the intent, inclusions, and exclusions. That cannot be ignored unless of course one is remaining willfully obtuse to the entirety of the available scholarship.
As stated previously the phrase inserted by Mr. Howrd is where the debate should be centered. To conclude without supporting argument that only one interpretation of that phrase must now be considered, in the face of previous SCOTUS decisions which were directly on point and ignored in your response, offers nothing to your argument. To take them out of the context of the congressional debates is definitely not helpful to your argument. A careful reading of the original debates will reveal a pattern from Howard, as well from Senator Trumball who worked on the 14th, and drafted the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 from which Howrd paraphrased the indicated passage in the 14th amendment. In each case these men repeatedly talked about all immigrants, not just some, having citizenship at birth despite the standing of their parents. If you can come to a different conclusion from the original transcript provided below, I'll be interested in reading it.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=603
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... &recNum=11
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=605

The biggest issue with your response is the total lack of reference to the underlying issue, which is whether previous holdings of SCOTUS, laws passed by Congress, and the 14th Amendment can be overturned by a presidential directive. Congress may be able to pass legislation for SCOTUS to subsequently review, but not likely any other way. A failure to address the underlying issue is not the sign of a serious scholar.


I will allow you the last word after this as we clearly are at impasse and I am not going to make an honest attempt at a discussing an issues with your dedication to the the ad homenim. I will just say this. I have clearly presented the legal precedence which you and your side of the aisle who prefer a broader definition do not accept. Fortunately that is precisely what the SCOTUS is for is to settle questions such as this. My guess is they will do exactly that in regard to the 14th, pending 2nd issues, and many more. I will go ahead and address what is sure to be a diatribe about court stacking with this. Elections matter. Blue lost in 2016.
Be blessed.
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.
Thomas Jefferson

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 220
Posts: 8607
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Today in Trump's new term as President

#2730

Post by mojo84 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:15 pm

Before you head to the polls tomorrow, please consider these accomplishments.

www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration ... lishments/

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”