Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 77,868
- 57,178
- 3,565
I want it to change and I think it can beAgreed, but it sure as shit wasn't intended to accommodate illegal aliens, and that distinction should be codified by SCOTUS.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I want it to change and I think it can beAgreed, but it sure as shit wasn't intended to accommodate illegal aliens, and that distinction should be codified by SCOTUS.
Oddly the 14th doesn't mention slavesThe term 'birthright citizenship' does NOT exist in the Constitution. No Supreme Court case has ever said the off spring of an illegal alien is a citizen.
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause was to give freed slaves and freed blacks citizenship, to put teeth into the 1866 Civil Rights Act because the 'Dred Scott' ruling had said backs could not be citizens.
There's a reason Congress had to pass a law in 1921 to give American Indians citizenship.
Offer up a Constitutional Amendment..Lotsa luckI want it to change and I think it can be
The judge injected politics into it. The amend. was added in 1868 while a democrat confederate was POTUS, BTW. Can't say what the motive was, but if it came with good intentions it lacked vision. They should change it to a parent must be a US citizen, if not just the mother.Judge slams Trump while extending block on birthright citizenship order
A federal judge in Seattle has accused President Donald Trump of brazenly defying the law by seeking to end birthright citizenship in the United States.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said during a hearing Thursday that Trump’s executive order is flagrantly unconstitutional, and he extended a temporary hold on the policy.
The executive order is now subject to two nationwide injunctions issued by separate judges on consecutive days. The injunctions keep the policy on ice while legal challenges proceed.
Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, let loose on Trump for his dismissive approach toward legal constraints.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” the judge said. “Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.”
It's good to see this coming from a conservative judge. It tells that while congressional Repubs are too afraid to speak out about the initiation of autocratic rule there are some rank and file members of the party who are not.
I was heartened by his words since they indicate Dem's are not the only ones who see what is happening. If the shocking lawlessness and abuses of power continue I think we'll be hearing from more Repubs like Judge Coughenour.
The lack of sufficient support for a constitutional amendment to change the 14th A is shared by trump's efforts to end congressionally created agencies. He doesn't have the votes so he's trying to do it by executive fiat.Offer up a Constitutional Amendment..Lotsa luck
I think we can get around thatOffer up a Constitutional Amendment..Lotsa luck
Don’t they see their own? Any different?Only if you can point out their conflict of interest.
Don’t they see their own? Any different?
Wouldn't two 1/2 weeks be one week? Math.This quote from a Reagan appointed judge perfectly encapsulates trump's first two 1/2 weeks.
He's a senile POS and will be overruled. Next.
Again, no one should be allowed ever cause the judge wants to be a dictator. Looking for how this is constitutionalSome do or should, like Thomas. Is that a problem also? Yes.
Via decision by a higher court.How would he be overruled?
Via decision by a higher court.
Oddly the 14th doesn't mention slaves
It's the interpretation that's being questioned, and the SCOTUS will clarify.Based on what? The president can't change the Constitution with the flick of a pen.
Hey stupid. The claim was that the 14th only dealt with slavesSlavery isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. So I guess slavery never existed in America
Hey stupid. The claim was that the 14th only dealt with slaves
Nowhere does it say that
Keep up
Why didn’t it say that then?NIce ad hominem.
LOL
Everyone KNOWS that the citizenship clause in the 14th was aimed at freedmen.