Cafeteria Style Constitutionalists Backing Trump Hating on the Constitution

[Carl in Michigan]

This is why Trump is so great. He just keeps blazing new trails where our POLITICIANS fear to go. No Democrat challenged it, and neither has any other Republican. Trump is a true independent.

 

[Dana7360]

It's par for the course with the cult.

Worship parts of the constitution

and propose

an executive order can eliminate other parts of the constitution

but they may be on to something. Can't wait to see another prez use an executive order to eliminate the 1st or 2nd amendments. after all they came in later

illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the American government. If they were, they would be deported.

Also, they are legal citizens of other nations.

If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the American government then they aren't here illegally.

If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction none of our laws apply to them.

Yes they can and are deported. In 2013 alone Obama deported 438,421 people who were here illegally.

U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013

Where did you get the idea that they aren't being deported?

Do you like to make a fool of yourself to all of cyberspace? If so you're doing a very good job.

 

[JBvM]

This is why Trump is so great. He just keeps blazing new trails where our POLITICIANS fear to go. No Democrat challenged it, and neither has any other Republican. Trump is a true independent.

Best joke of the month so far, with only a few hours to go

 

[Correll]

It's par for the course with the cult.

Worship parts of the constitution

and propose

an executive order can eliminate other parts of the constitution

but they may be on to something. Can't wait to see another prez use an executive order to eliminate the 1st or 2nd amendments. after all they came in later

illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the American government. If they were, they would be deported.

Also, they are legal citizens of other nations.

If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the American government then they aren't here illegally.

If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction none of our laws apply to them.

Yes they can and are deported. In 2013 alone Obama deported 438,421 people who were here illegally.

U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013

Where did you get the idea that they aren't being deported?

Do you like to make a fool of yourself to all of cyberspace? If so you're doing a very good job.

The ones that are CAUGHT, are THEN subjected to our laws and deported.


I guess is an illegal gave birth was in custody and being processed, that would be a different conversation.


Of course at that time, the mother is still a citizen of another nation.

 

[Freiheit]

It's par for the course with the cult.

Worship parts of the constitution

and propose

an executive order can eliminate other parts of the constitution

but they may be on to something. Can't wait to see another prez use an executive order to eliminate the 1st or 2nd amendments. after all they came in later

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I oppose Trump's use of an EO to circumvent the constitution. I like Trump, but this is a colossally stupid mistake that has ZERO chance to succeed.

Now, what about that "cult"?

Yes cult -- meaning just because you oppose it -- Trump knows his cult won't

Evidence of the fact, his cult are trying to defend it -- even his cult of elected officials who should know better...

And it was never proposed with the purpose of passing, it was proposed for the purpose of riling up xenophobic voters as per what has been standard operating procedure for Republicans for decades..

 

[K9Buck]

I oppose Trump's use of an EO to circumvent the constitution. I like Trump, but this is a colossally stupid mistake that has ZERO chance to succeed.

Now, what about that "cult"?

Yes cult -- meaning just because you oppose it -- Trump knows his cult won't

Evidence of the fact, his cult are trying to defend it -- even his cult of elected officials who should know better...

And it was never proposed with the purpose of passing, it was proposed for the purpose of riling up xenophobic voters as per what has been standard operating procedure for Republicans for decades..

By the same token, many on the left have never seen a foreigner that they didn't think should be living here at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

 

[JBvM]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

 

[Freiheit]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

 

[JBvM]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

Find a quote/name me a credible leading person who claims: healthcare is a part of the constitution, is a right to food, a right to housing, a right to forced government charity?

It should be easy for somebody as convinced of their own intellect as you appear to be

 

[Freiheit]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

Find a quote/name me a credible leading person who claims: healthcare is a part of the constitution, is a right to food, a right to housing, a right to forced government charity?

It should be easy for somebody as convinced of their own intellect as you appear to be

You have failed to deflect the conversation there is no mention of a right to privacy in the constitution. The rights mentioned in the constitution are clearly named.
If an amendment is approved by the states and the congress it becomes part of the constitution until that occurs the constitution stands as written and that is real.
There is no buffet style constitutionalism.

 

[JBvM]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

Find a quote/name me a credible leading person who claims: healthcare is a part of the constitution, is a right to food, a right to housing, a right to forced government charity?

It should be easy for somebody as convinced of their own intellect as you appear to be

You have failed to deflect the conversation there is no mention of a right to privacy in the constitution. The rights mentioned in the constitution are clearly named.
If an amendment is approved by the states and the congress it becomes part of the constitution until that occurs the constitution stands as written and that is real.
There is no buffet style constitutionalism.

1) I did not say there was a right to privacy mentioned in the US Constitution, did I? I clearly asked "is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution?"

2) Are there rights mentioned but not clearly named in the US Constitution?

3) With people who usually scream about rights, liberties, and being so-called constitutionalists and libertarians -- there clearly is a "buffet style constitutionalism."

 

[Freiheit]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

Find a quote/name me a credible leading person who claims: healthcare is a part of the constitution, is a right to food, a right to housing, a right to forced government charity?

It should be easy for somebody as convinced of their own intellect as you appear to be

You have failed to deflect the conversation there is no mention of a right to privacy in the constitution. The rights mentioned in the constitution are clearly named.
If an amendment is approved by the states and the congress it becomes part of the constitution until that occurs the constitution stands as written and that is real.
There is no buffet style constitutionalism.

1) I did not say there was a right to privacy mentioned in the US Constitution, did I? I clearly asked "is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution?"

2) Are there rights mentioned but not clearly named in the US Constitution?

3) With people who usually scream about rights, liberties, and being so-called constitutionalists and libertarians -- there clearly is a "buffet style constitutionalism."

At this point I have no idea what you are trying to say. Rights are not granted by the constitution. What government is allowed is the purpose of the constitution.
The Bill of Rights lists what government is forbidden to interfere with. Is your arguement the constitution is a "living" doucument or something else.

 

[sparky]

the real Q seems, do we want a constitutional process, or a dictator?

~S~

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I oppose Trump's use of an EO to circumvent the constitution. I like Trump, but this is a colossally stupid mistake that has ZERO chance to succeed.

Now, what about that "cult"?

It is the current application of the admendment that is unconstitutional. Send this to the Supreme Court. I think we will win with Kavanaugh's vote.

What is being misapplied?

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.

How are illegals "subject to the jurisdiction "

 

[Darkwind]

I oppose Trump's use of an EO to circumvent the constitution. I like Trump, but this is a colossally stupid mistake that has ZERO chance to succeed.

Now, what about that "cult"?

I'll bet he had no problem with Obama skirting the Consitution with his EA/EO's.

 

[JBvM]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

Find a quote/name me a credible leading person who claims: healthcare is a part of the constitution, is a right to food, a right to housing, a right to forced government charity?

It should be easy for somebody as convinced of their own intellect as you appear to be

You have failed to deflect the conversation there is no mention of a right to privacy in the constitution. The rights mentioned in the constitution are clearly named.
If an amendment is approved by the states and the congress it becomes part of the constitution until that occurs the constitution stands as written and that is real.
There is no buffet style constitutionalism.

1) I did not say there was a right to privacy mentioned in the US Constitution, did I? I clearly asked "is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution?"

2) Are there rights mentioned but not clearly named in the US Constitution?

3) With people who usually scream about rights, liberties, and being so-called constitutionalists and libertarians -- there clearly is a "buffet style constitutionalism."

At this point I have no idea what you are trying to say. Rights are not granted by the constitution. What government is allowed is the purpose of the constitution.
The Bill of Rights lists what government is forbidden to interfere with. Is your arguement the constitution is a "living" doucument or something else.

And I did not say rights are 'granted' by the constitution, did I?

At this point you may not any idea what I am saying, because I do not fit your stereotype or caricature.

"What government is allowed is the purpose of the constitution?" wtf? English, please

"The Bill of Rights lists what government is forbidden to interfere with." you wrote. The quote below, what is the BoR saying the gov cannot interfere with?

Love this quote: The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that the rights citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution. -- What do you Freiheit think about it?

Is my argument the constitution is -- I make no argument about what it is and isn't. How could, when we haven't even made it clear you know what you are talking about? Go back and follow the timeline of our exchange

l

 

[JBvM]

I'll bet he had no problem with Obama skirting the Consitution with his EA/EO's.

Your opinions are no substitute for facts. Has the Court ruled Obama's use of EA/EO's was unconstitutional?

 

[Freiheit]

What an idiotic thing to say. You are shoving your ignorance in the faces of the board members. The constitution says nothing, nothing about birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment made the slaves American citizens. What lead to birthright citizenship was a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Birthright citizenship hangs on a court decision not the Constitution.
Check your facts before you "let you alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass".

is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution

No. Such a "right" is not constitutional it is a judicial construct. A right to healthcare is not a part of the constitution, nor is a right to food, nor a right to housing, nor a right to forced government charity, nor are a host of other things being touted as rights.

Find a quote/name me a credible leading person who claims: healthcare is a part of the constitution, is a right to food, a right to housing, a right to forced government charity?

It should be easy for somebody as convinced of their own intellect as you appear to be

You have failed to deflect the conversation there is no mention of a right to privacy in the constitution. The rights mentioned in the constitution are clearly named.
If an amendment is approved by the states and the congress it becomes part of the constitution until that occurs the constitution stands as written and that is real.
There is no buffet style constitutionalism.

1) I did not say there was a right to privacy mentioned in the US Constitution, did I? I clearly asked "is a right to privacy mentioned in the us constitution?"

2) Are there rights mentioned but not clearly named in the US Constitution?

3) With people who usually scream about rights, liberties, and being so-called constitutionalists and libertarians -- there clearly is a "buffet style constitutionalism."

At this point I have no idea what you are trying to say. Rights are not granted by the constitution. What government is allowed is the purpose of the constitution.
The Bill of Rights lists what government is forbidden to interfere with. Is your arguement the constitution is a "living" doucument or something else.

And I did not say rights are 'granted' by the constitution, did I?

At this point you may not any idea what I am saying, because I do not fit your stereotype or caricature.

"What government is allowed is the purpose of the constitution?" wtf? English, please

"The Bill of Rights lists what government is forbidden to interfere with." you wrote. The quote below, what is the BoR saying the gov cannot interfere with?

Love this quote: The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that the rights citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution. -- What do you Freiheit think about it?

Is my argument the constitution is -- I make no argument about what it is and isn't. How could, when we haven't even made it clear you know what you are talking about? Go back and follow the timeline of our exchange

l

That the constitution does not grant rights is self evident. Your confused language does not make it clear you understand that fact. Your reply is nothing more than confused and purposefully confusing hokum. The constitution limits what government is allowed to do if you do not understand that we have nothing more to talk about. As for the ninth amendment, like justices of the Supreme Court I find the ninth vague. As chief justice Burger said "But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?
Unless you are more specific this conversation is nothing more than a sophomoric waste of time.

 

[K9Buck]

... this conversation is nothing more than a sophomoric waste of time.

I was curious as to whom you were directing your comments, thus I clicked on "show ignored content". Let me help you. Yes, you are wasting your time.