One Of Trump's Unconstitutional EOs Is Being Raked Over the Coals By SCOTUS Tomorrow

[martybegan]

Yup. I know. Which is why I see no particular purpose served by having a bicameral legislature in NY State.

Frankly, I believe we should (nationally) repeal the 17th Amendment.

I agree. But we need to fix the 14th to allow geographical based upper houses in the States.

 

[Unkotare]

... Prior to someone calling them "anchor babies" they were called babies illegal aliens had to immunize themselves from deportation.

But they don't.

 

[Unkotare]

of course it does. ...

Nope.

 

[martybegan]

An amendment is the only real solution....for those who see the 14th as a problem~

The 14th isn't the problem, it's extension into some things is the problem.

Morris v Board of Estimates is a good example.

 

[Unkotare]

... We can only deport 1 of these women. ...

Why? We deport more than one person at a time all the time.

 

[BackAgain]

I agree. But we need to fix the 14th to allow geographical based upper houses in the States.

We used to have a U.S. Senate which was (clearly) not predicated on “one person, one vote.” That phrase does have lots of merit. But relying on it to dictate how a state city must structure subordinate legislative bodies is absurd.

 

[martybegan]

I'm saying 7-2 against birthright citizenship

8-1 saying stop with the nationwide injunctions at the district level.

Whoops I mean 7-2 against ENDING birthright citizenship.

8-1 still stands on nationwide injunctions.

 

[martybegan]

We used to have a U.S. Senate which was (clearly) not predicated on “one person, one vote.” That phrase does have lots of merit. But relying on it to dictate how a state city must structure subordinate legislative bodies is absurd.

We still do have that, as each State has two Senators regardless of population, but I get what you are saying.

 

[Unkotare]

.... That someone with a child with birth right citizenship has been deported doesnt equate to people dont use their birth right citizen children to keep themselves from being deported.

That's like saying just because using a sack of rocks as a parachute doesn't work that people don't use sacks of rocks as parachutes.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Join us here in reality.

Take your own advice.

 

[Unkotare]

Why? What benefit does birth right citizenship have for the US?

What harm does it have?

 

[Unkotare]

? How do you figure that?

Does it say on your birth certificate how many generations your family has been in the US? No. Why not? Because it doesn't matter. The only legally actionable factor is that you were born in the US.

 

[TemplarKormac]

An amendment is the only real solution....for those who see the 14th as a problem~

But since you can't rely on three-fourths of the states to agree on anything, much less an amendment, what are we left with?

 

[Unkotare]

We have but it's not typical. ...

Very common.

 

[BackAgain]

We still do have that, as each State has two Senators regardless of population, but I get what you are saying.

Yea. But they are now selected by the majority of the respective State’s voters, instead of by the Legislatures. So, I wonder if the latter way of choosing US Senators somehow violates the holding of Morris?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

But since you can't rely on three-fourths of the states to agree on anything, much less an amendment, what are we left with?

I think we call it the law?

 

[martybegan]

Yea. But they are now selected by the majority of the respective State’s voters, instead of by the Legislatures. So, I wonder if the latter way of choosing US Senators somehow violates the holding of Morris?

It's moot until the 17th is repealed, but it is an interesting question. I would say no, because repealing the 17th returns the original method to the Constitution, which since it's explicit and part of the federal government doesn't fall under Morris which applied to State level governments and below.

Because the 14th directly applied equal protection to the States, as they were trying to prevent the shenanigans that Plessey allowed to happen anyway at the State level.

 

[BackAgain]

It's moot until the 17th is repealed, but it is an interesting question.

I’m not so sure about that. When State Legislators selected US senators, it was indeed a part of the Constitution and therefore couldn’t possibly have been unconstitutional.

But with voters selecting their Senators, the voters of one state do not get the same proportional representation as voters in various other states. So, it’s a bit muddled.

I would say no, because repealing the 17th returns the original method to the Constitution, which since it's explicit and part of the federal government doesn't fall under Morris which applied to State level governments and below.

Yep.

Because the 14th directly applied equal protection to the States, as they were trying to prevent the shenanigans that Plessey allowed to happen anyway at the State level.

I am a supporter of our Constitution. But I still recognize some mild contradictions or ambiguities in what it says. Therefore, I get why we need a Court to resolve some issues created by those ambiguities. That’s where “interpretation” comes in.

One of the things I hate is when there is no true ambiguity but a court takes a case just to pontificate about an “interpretation.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

Which has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. Do try to find a topic that meets your hackney needs.

Of course it does. Birthright citizenship is a draw for illegals, which would be there even without all the cash incentives for claiming assylum.asylum.

Oh well. Best strategy for stopping the border flow was always gonna be deport, deport, deport.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope, nope, and nope. You are just using your imagination.

"Fair" is not the most objective source but dispute this if you can:

Chain Migration Definition & Example

Chain Migration is the process in which an immigrant to the US sponsors other family members for admissions who can then sponsor more family members.

www.fairus.org