Would You Approve The REPEAL of The 2nd Amendment By Executive Order?

[candycorn]

Great thread. Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame

How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.

So, for thsake of debate, let's say Trump signs the EO, and SCOTUS eventually agrees.

In theory a precedent would be set & any future POTUS could just willie nillie sign any EO & remove any part of any Amendment, or outright repeal any Amendment.

Are you ready to go down that slippery slope?
Is America ready for that?
Be careful what you wish for.

Correct!

 

[EGR one]

Not legal.

What is, "not legal?"

Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution? An EO can't do it.

Well, of course. I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.

There has been a long standing legal argument over whether anchor babies are, or are not, covered by the 14th amendment. Clearly, there was no intent to secure anchor babies through the amendment, but are they covered by default?

Trump's idea of an executive order would force the courts to make a decision on the matter. The left would file numerous court cases on the executive order, and the Supreme Court would be forced to take the issue up.

 

[PredFan]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

Because you can’t over ride the Constitution with executive actions.

And don’t be stupid enough to argue that Trump is doing that with the 14th because the 14th was never meant to be used for children of illegals.

 

[candycorn]

Great thread. Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame

How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.

You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.

 

[caddo kid]

Not legal.

What is, "not legal?"

Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution? An EO can't do it.

Well, of course. I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.

Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns, (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?

So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

You shouldn't be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'

 

[Weatherman2020]

I can’t own a bazooka.
I can’t yell fire in a theater.
I must bake that cake.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Great thread. Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame

How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.

You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.

Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder how many people would lose their right to vote?

That would be funny as hell ..



.

 

[martybegan]

Great thread. Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame

How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.

You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.

Actually I have stated that this will probably get struck down, and should get struck down. EO's get used too much, but this one is only to get the Courts to do something. (and maybe congress too)

Now if congress made a strictly constructed law targeting only the children of illegals, I could see it passing muster.

 

[caddo kid]

Not legal.

What is, "not legal?"

Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution? An EO can't do it.

Well, of course. I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.

There has been a long standing legal argument over whether anchor babies are, or are not, covered by the 14th amendment. Clearly, there was no intent to secure anchor babies through the amendment, but are they covered by default?

Trump's idea of an executive order would force the courts to make a decision on the matter. The left would file numerous court cases on the executive order, and the Supreme Court would be forced to take the issue up.

SCOTUS has refused many cases put to them

 

[Auld Phart]

Not legal.

What is, "not legal?"

Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution? An EO can't do it.

Well, of course. I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.

Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns, (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?

So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

You shouldn't be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'

and you should use a plunger on your ear, to get at least pat of the crap out of your head

IF Trump signs that EO, it will be forced into the courts to determine the legality if it.

You keep screaming 'REPEAL'.

no one has said that, and I doubt you know what it means.

 

[martybegan]

Great thread. Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame

How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.

You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.

Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.

And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[caddo kid]

What is, "not legal?"

Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution? An EO can't do it.

Well, of course. I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.

Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns, (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?

So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

You shouldn't be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'

and you should use a plunger on your ear, to get at least pat of the crap out of your head

IF Trump signs that EO, it will be forced into the courts to determine the legality if it.

You keep screaming 'REPEAL'.

no one has said that, and I doubt you know what it means.

You replied to this: So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

I guess if I'm deaf then U R fvcking blind; OK.

AFA Trump potentially signing the EO, YES, I know he would do it to force it to a court fight. Duh

 

[Auld Phart]

Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution? An EO can't do it.

Well, of course. I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.

Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns, (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?

So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

You shouldn't be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'

and you should use a plunger on your ear, to get at least pat of the crap out of your head

IF Trump signs that EO, it will be forced into the courts to determine the legality if it.

You keep screaming 'REPEAL'.

no one has said that, and I doubt you know what it means.

You replied to this: So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

I guess if I'm deaf then U R fvcking blind; OK.

If he signs the EO, it WILL become a SCOTUS case.

You cant see past the end of your nose, and accuse me of being blind?

 

[Freiheit]

The 14th amendment is not in question. A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question. The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.

 

[flacaltenn]

I voted YES but why did I vote YES?

I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.

If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.

We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.

Lemme spare your time here. You're gonna lose this mental masturbation. You can't repeal an Amendment with an E.O.

However, the 14th Amendment was NEVER INTENDED to apply to illegal entries, visitors or even delegations of diplomats from foreign countries. The principle AUTHOR stated as much when it was offered. SPECIFICALLY, he said what I just told you.

Furthermore, it was in effect for close to 100 years UNTIL it was INTERPRETED by some activist judges to mean ANYONE born inside the borders. So -- it's up to the courts to review.

But you can't ignore the terms "all NATURALIZED people" in the actual words.

From Political Insider ---
Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains It... Liberals Are FURIOUS! - The Political Insider

 

[miketx]

I voted YES but why did I vote YES?

I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.

If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.

We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.

Come get them traitor.

 

[miketx]

I voted YES but why did I vote YES?

I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.

If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.

We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.

Lemme spare your time here. You're gonna lose this mental masturbation. You can't repeal an Amendment with an E.O.

However, the 14th Amendment was NEVER INTENDED to apply to illegal entries, visitors or even delegations of diplomats from foreign countries. The principle AUTHOR stated as much when it was offered. SPECIFICALLY, he said what I just told you.

Furthermore, it was in effect for close to 100 years UNTIL it was INTERPRETED by some activist judges to mean ANYONE born inside the borders. So -- it's up to the courts to review.

But you can't ignore the terms "all NATURALIZED people" in the actual words.

From Political Insider ---
Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains It... Liberals Are FURIOUS! - The Political Insider

Liberals certainly can, and they do ignore facts, all the time. Now, to see them talk out of both sides of their mouths, and show their two faces, wait until this Mueller rape accusation gets going.

As far as repealing the 2nd, I don't care let them. They will get a war one way or the other.

 

[flacaltenn]

Great thread. Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame

How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.

You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.

Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.

And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.

certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify.. UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.

 

[caddo kid]

The 14th amendment is not in question. A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question. The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.

the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best