Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[FA_Q2]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer

Sorry to break your bubble but Mark Levin is not a constitutional lawyer just a regular one. Obama was a constitutional law lecturer (professor)...

Obama would chew Levin up for breakfast in constitutional law.

And just a small comparison, How many Obama's Law school became Supreme court justices compared to Levin's law school?

That is why Obama seems to be on the winning end of so many constitutional challenges in the SCOTUS. Oh, wait...

 

[FA_Q2]

What facts? Every one of those 25 is not factually true or, if true, not a crime.

so you think it is 'not a crime' to attack the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, to ignore our immigration laws, to lie about healthcare, to use his DOJ for political purposes, to lie about the death of an Ambassador.... and the list goes on.......

i think the freakin' traitor should be impeached....

Those are speculations and opinions, not facts. Presenting those things as facts is political hackery and dishonest. Many of those things have been investigated by Republican controlled congressional committees and found to be non criminal and cleared the President of wrong doing. So, ya, after a person is cleared of wrong doing and to continue to accuse them of being a criminal for the offense he was cleared of is just lying, a big part of political harkery.

No, it is not a crime to "attack the first amendment". More importantly, nothing the President did was an attack on the first amendment. And he is not ignoring immigration laws; he is enforcing them in the manner he sees fit in the exercise of his power to enforce the laws. He did not lie about health care; he did not lie about the murder of Stevens and he has not used the Justice Department for political purposes.

you can believe in the tooth fairy too.....it is your right....but facts are facts....

1. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .
   
   • More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
   • Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.

Are executive orders illegal?

Depends on the EO.

But you knew that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Those are speculations and opinions, not facts. Presenting those things as facts is political hackery and dishonest. Many of those things have been investigated by Republican controlled congressional committees and found to be non criminal and cleared the President of wrong doing. So, ya, after a person is cleared of wrong doing and to continue to accuse them of being a criminal for the offense he was cleared of is just lying, a big part of political harkery.

No, it is not a crime to "attack the first amendment". More importantly, nothing the President did was an attack on the first amendment. And he is not ignoring immigration laws; he is enforcing them in the manner he sees fit in the exercise of his power to enforce the laws. He did not lie about health care; he did not lie about the murder of Stevens and he has not used the Justice Department for political purposes.

you can believe in the tooth fairy too.....it is your right....but facts are facts....

1. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .
   • More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
   • Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.

More ******* lies.

don't you remember the Federal Judge that put a hold on Obama's executive amnesty.....? seems the Judge agrees with me...

“The court expects all parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote in his decision, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Attorneys for the 26 states are arguing Obama’s executive action causes “irreparable harm” to their local interests. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the charge of states’ protests against Obama’s action, called Hanen’s ruling commendable.

“The Obama administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the president’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America,” Paxton said. “As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse. Any premature implementation could have serious consequences.”


Read more at Federal judge halts Obama – again – on amnesty

you know that quote isn't from the judge, right?

yes and that was so important to point out because....?

 

[paddymurphy]

No, it is not a crime to "attack the first amendment". More importantly, nothing the President did was an attack on the first amendment. And he is not ignoring immigration laws; he is enforcing them in the manner he sees fit in the exercise of his power to enforce the laws. He did not lie about health care; he did not lie about the murder of Stevens and he has not used the Justice Department for political purposes.

you can believe in the tooth fairy too.....it is your right....but facts are facts....

1. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .
   • More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
   • Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.

More ******* lies.

don't you remember the Federal Judge that put a hold on Obama's executive amnesty.....? seems the Judge agrees with me...

“The court expects all parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote in his decision, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Attorneys for the 26 states are arguing Obama’s executive action causes “irreparable harm” to their local interests. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the charge of states’ protests against Obama’s action, called Hanen’s ruling commendable.

“The Obama administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the president’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America,” Paxton said. “As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse. Any premature implementation could have serious consequences.”


Read more at Federal judge halts Obama – again – on amnesty

you know that quote isn't from the judge, right?

yes and that was so important to point out because....?

Because you tried to make it seem it was. In other words, you lied.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you can believe in the tooth fairy too.....it is your right....but facts are facts....

1. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .
   • More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
   • Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.

More ******* lies.

don't you remember the Federal Judge that put a hold on Obama's executive amnesty.....? seems the Judge agrees with me...

“The court expects all parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote in his decision, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Attorneys for the 26 states are arguing Obama’s executive action causes “irreparable harm” to their local interests. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the charge of states’ protests against Obama’s action, called Hanen’s ruling commendable.

“The Obama administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the president’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America,” Paxton said. “As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse. Any premature implementation could have serious consequences.”


Read more at Federal judge halts Obama – again – on amnesty

you know that quote isn't from the judge, right?

yes and that was so important to point out because....?

Because you tried to make it seem it was. In other words, you lied.

i did not....it's right there in black and white......"Paxton said"......the judges name is Hanen.....learn to read dumbass....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution"

At least Levin and others on the right are consistent at being wrong.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Court reaffirmed the fact that Congress lacks the authority to 'change' the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause:

“The acts of Congress known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the earliest of which was passed some fourteen years after the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, cannot control its meaning or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions. “

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Vigilante]

Because the framers had COMMON SENSE!!!!

Oh, FYI, I'm on double secret probation again, so IF I get lucky once an hour or so to get to post, you'll know why! Enjoy your reprieve FAGERALS!

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps people with a 3 digit IQ will understand this....No liberals need apply!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

ROFLMNAO!

Adorable...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

Oh... now THAT is a lovely concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[BULLDOG]

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.

Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.

Nothing dishonest about an answer that covers the question. Obviously the right thinks Levin, or trump, or some other rattlehead found a magic phrase that will solve all your fears and worries about immigration, and I say it won't work. That's about as far as we need to go. If you think your little idea is valid, then you don't need to be wasting time here. Show what kind of a man you are and demand that somebody do something about it. If your little phrase is that forceful and definitive, we should be hearing about congressional hearings by tomorrow night.

There is no magic here - the right has no interests in reforming immigration than the left does. We know this from their actions.

That does not, however, have any relation to a debate on what is possible under the constitution for congress to enact. I don't see any particular problem with what OK is stating. If the court has not ruled on this issue then it would clearly be within congress' power to enact.

I also believe that the court would overturn the law though.

Debate all you want. I have heard and completely understood the right wing point of view on this, and see it as nothing more than more bullshit. Rereading the same arguments won't change my mind. I chose not to participate in this silliness.

Bullshit.

You are participating right now and demanding that they are incorrect. Your points are moot and now you simply do not want to admit it. If you don't want to participate then you would not post.

The post you are responding to was yesterday. Are you saying I can't peek back in?

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

Oh... now THAT is a lovely concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I don't think the word concession means what you think it does.

 

[Camp]

Perhaps people with a 3 digit IQ will understand this....No liberals need apply!

Neither one of these guys are considered or recognized as constitutional experts, let alone scholars. They just repeat the same points that the experts and scholars keep saying they are wrong about.

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps people with a 3 digit IQ will understand this....No liberals need apply!

Neither one of these guys are considered or recognized as constitutional experts, let alone scholars. They just repeat the same points that the experts and scholars keep saying they are wrong about.

But in 1982 a LEGAL, and an ILLEGAL ALIEN were EQUAL in the eyes of a SCOTUS judge....and YOU and the FAGERALS, don't have the integrity to agree that those 2 entities are NOT equal, and DO NOT deserve the same treatment under our immigration laws.... THIS is why you scum, are ridiculed, and have a mental disorder!

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

There's not a lick of evidence that the Supreme Court has ever ruled regarding citizenship for children of illegals. There was a court ruling in the late 1800s that children of legal immigrants must be considered citizens.

 

[OKTexas]

The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

Nope. It was meant to exclude diplomats who are immune from US jurisdiction, not children born here.

In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to anyone born here. It was vetoed twice by Johnson, but Congress overrode it with a two-thirds majority.

This was in the same time frame as the 14th Amendment. So your claim the framers of the 14th did not intend birthright citizenship is complete bullshit.

Didn't read the link, did ya? Read it and try again.

I provided the actual Congressional Record, dumbass. That trumps any out of context quotes from it.

And the Congressional Record makes it plain as day that all children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. The ONLY exclusions were for children of foreign ministers and ambassadors and American Indians.

Like I said earlier, the sponsor of the 14th amendment overestimated the intelligence of people like you when he said all doubt was removed who was a citizen.

Right, that's why it excluded American Indians, right? Congress passed a law in the 1920's to make them US citizens.

Yes, it excluded American Indians because they were not under US jurisdiction. Babies born to American Indians were citizens of their particular tribe.

It also excluded aliens, foreigners and diplomats. That's exactly how the folks who wrote it explained it, when lobbying for passage. The 14th doesn't specifically exclude Indians in its text but everyone went by the intent, as should be done with the other categories.

 

[OKTexas]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

There was more than one "framer". There were debates and you take one portion of one quote from one supporter out of context. More importantly, you don't ******* understand the words and intentionally change them. He did not say it was intended to exclude "...foreigners, aliens and diplomats." The word "and" does not appear in the quote. The real quote 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." The meaning is that foreigners, aliens, who are here with a parent who is a diplomats and therefore not subject to our jurisdiction, will not become citizens at birth but every other child born here will. The phrase, " who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both the words "foreigners and aliens". From the structure of the sentence, he was referring to one group: foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. That is how the Supreme Court in construed it in 1898.

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

 

[OKTexas]

Ultra partisan hackery at it's highest or lowest, depending on whether you are looking down or up. Nonsense rubbish either way.

so you deny/ignore the facts in order to not be a hack.....? seems to me that is the definition of a hack......hack....

What facts? Every one of those 25 is not factually true or, if true, not a crime.

so you think it is 'not a crime' to attack the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, to ignore our immigration laws, to lie about healthcare, to use his DOJ for political purposes, to lie about the death of an Ambassador.... and the list goes on.......

i think the freakin' traitor should be impeached....

Those are speculations and opinions, not facts. Presenting those things as facts is political hackery and dishonest. Many of those things have been investigated by Republican controlled congressional committees and found to be non criminal and cleared the President of wrong doing. So, ya, after a person is cleared of wrong doing and to continue to accuse them of being a criminal for the offense he was cleared of is just lying, a big part of political harkery.

No, it is not a crime to "attack the first amendment". More importantly, nothing the President did was an attack on the first amendment. And he is not ignoring immigration laws; he is enforcing them in the manner he sees fit in the exercise of his power to enforce the laws. He did not lie about health care; he did not lie about the murder of Stevens and he has not used the Justice Department for political purposes.

One question on one aspect of the immigration law. Where does he get the authority to issue work permits to people who are not eligible for them by law?

 

[OKTexas]

Perhaps people with a 3 digit IQ will understand this....No liberals need apply!

Neither one of these guys are considered or recognized as constitutional experts, let alone scholars. They just repeat the same points that the experts and scholars keep saying they are wrong about.

Right, Levin wrote a book on the supreme court, you might want to get someone to read it to ya.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]