Mark Levine showed his ignorance on today’s Sean Hannity show! (anchor baby debate)

[BULLDOG]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

So you insist the ACA be enforced as written? Lying assed hypocrite.

There is a certain amount of leeway allowed in the way laws are implemented and prioritized. That is not unusual or new. Just throwing out the 14th is more than that leeway allows.

Lol, so you learned that from your experience before the SC? Let's see some links, fella!

Nope. No Supreme court experience here. The fact is that neither you or I will be consulted even if this issue advances to the point that a decision has to be made. You are allowed to believe what you want, even if I think it is ludicrous. I just have one question. If a decision is made on this particular issue, and you are shown to be wrong, will you admit you were wrong, or will you just add that to the list of conspiracies that the right will never be able to let go of? I can. I don't think the right is capable of that.

 

[OKTexas]

If you want to change the 14th, you have to pass the 28th. It's not complicated, just very fuckin' hard. Good luck with that, kiddos...

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

 

[Jackson]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

So you insist the ACA be enforced as written? Lying assed hypocrite.

There is a certain amount of leeway allowed in the way laws are implemented and prioritized. That is not unusual or new. Just throwing out the 14th is more than that leeway allows.

Lol, so you learned that from your experience before the SC? Let's see some links, fella!

Nope. No Supreme court experience here. The fact is that neither you or I will be consulted even if this issue advances to the point that a decision has to be made. You are allowed to believe what you want, even if I think it is ludicrous. I just have one question. If a decision is made on this particular issue, and you are shown to be wrong, will you admit you were wrong, or will you just add that to the list of conspiracies that the right will never be able to let go of? I can. I don't think the right is capable of that.

You will just blather on instead of saying, "I have no links, won't you?

 

[oreo]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

To a point. We have a U.S. Supreme court that daily interprets the constitution--and the "intent" of the amendments. In that--the Constitution is a living document.

That's why Levin is WRONG in his "textual" comment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you want to change the 14th, you have to pass the 28th. It's not complicated, just very fuckin' hard. Good luck with that, kiddos...

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

 

[Jackson]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

To a point. We have a U.S. Supreme court that daily interprets the constitution--and the "intent" of the amendments. In that--the Constitution is a living document.

That's why Levin is WRONG in his "textual" comment of the U.S. Constitution.

Okay, you have got me confused Are you referring to Mark Levin or Mark Levine?

 

[OKTexas]

If you want to change the 14th, you have to pass the 28th. It's not complicated, just very fuckin' hard. Good luck with that, kiddos...

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

 

[Jackson]

If you want to change the 14th, you have to pass the 28th. It's not complicated, just very fuckin' hard. Good luck with that, kiddos...

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

If you want to change the 14th, you have to pass the 28th. It's not complicated, just very fuckin' hard. Good luck with that, kiddos...

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

Did I quote you? Ummm no. You got the first part almost right, the second point was "contact", not "go to", their diplomatic missions.

 

[OKTexas]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

 

[Jackson]

If you want to change the 14th, you have to pass the 28th. It's not complicated, just very fuckin' hard. Good luck with that, kiddos...

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

Did I quote you? Ummm no. You got the first part almost right, the second point was "contact", not "go to", their diplomatic missions.

Well, uh, you didn't quote anyone. So, what was wrong about the first part, and if it is "contact" the Ambassador, and not go there, the potential criminal say, "I called my embassy, so you can't charge me." The Embassy is where his jurisdiction is, not a phone call.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

 

[OKTexas]

No need to change anything, just enforce it as intended. Simple as that.

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

Did I quote you? Ummm no. You got the first part almost right, the second point was "contact", not "go to", their diplomatic missions.

Well, uh, you didn't quote anyone. So, what was wrong about the first part, and if it is "contact" the Ambassador, and not go there, the potential criminal say, "I called my embassy, so you can't charge me." The Embassy is where his jurisdiction is, not a phone call.

Maybe you should educate yourself on that little "click to expand" function.

 

[ScienceRocks]

seig hail

 

[jon_berzerk]

All that effort cutting and pasting on such a dumb subject. I never heard the term "textualist" before, but that is exactly what we are bound to. It doesn't matter what anyone was thinking or intended when a law is passed. The actual text of the law is what we go by. Can't get past that.

except for obamacare twice now

--LOL

 

[Jackson]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

For more than 100 years that's what has been happening...

"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."

Your problem is, it doesn't say what you want it to, it says what it says.


This is your version, only it's not part of the Constitution:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

Did I quote you? Ummm no. You got the first part almost right, the second point was "contact", not "go to", their diplomatic missions.

Well, uh, you didn't quote anyone. So, what was wrong about the first part, and if it is "contact" the Ambassador, and not go there, the potential criminal say, "I called my embassy, so you can't charge me." The Embassy is where his jurisdiction is, not a phone call.

Maybe you should educate yourself on that little "click to expand" function.

Look at post #27. There is nothing to expand, smart ass.

 

[OKTexas]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

 

[OKTexas]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

Uh, you talking to me? Well, uh, er...It excluded Indians because their allegiance was to their own tribes, culture and laws.

And secondly, they have to abide by the jurisdiction if the host country but if they make is to an American Consulate (after committing a crime) they are again on American land. Whatever crime was issued to the American citizen is null and void until he walks out of that Embassy. (Just a guess.) (Used American as an example of the illegal.)

Did I quote you? Ummm no. You got the first part almost right, the second point was "contact", not "go to", their diplomatic missions.

Well, uh, you didn't quote anyone. So, what was wrong about the first part, and if it is "contact" the Ambassador, and not go there, the potential criminal say, "I called my embassy, so you can't charge me." The Embassy is where his jurisdiction is, not a phone call.

Maybe you should educate yourself on that little "click to expand" function.

Look at post #27. There is nothing to expand, smart ass.

I looked, there is, dumb ass. It includes the posts from PMH and my response to PMH.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Riddle me this batman, if the 14th says what you say:

1. How did it exclude American Indians?

2. Why do illegals have a right to contact the diplomatic missions of
their home country if they are arrested for a criminal offense?

1. They were born in other (Native American) nations. Like a baby born on French soil (their embassy) but in the US.
2. Subject to our laws but foreign nationals. Babies born here are not foreign nations meaning, you're fucked without a constitutional amendment.

So by your logic a person can break into your house, have a kid and declare the kid is part of your family and they are entitled to stay. That makes sense to you?

Whether is makes sense or not, dropping a baby here means the baby is, nearly without exception, an American. And the only way to change that, amend the fucking Constitution. The words of the 14th, right or wrong, are clear. Even the Supreme Court agrees and in US v Wong the dissenters were not exactly thrilled about the arrangement...

So now the children of criminal aliens are equivalent to those of legal aliens, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the court agrees. They got it wong the first time.

The court already decided, over 100 years ago. Time to catch up.