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

[Wyatt earp]

Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.

Way to go Donald.

300 million plus guns in this country says otherwise..........



.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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

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

You're lying.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.

Way to go Donald.

300 million plus guns in this country says otherwise..........



.

300+ million native born Americans say otherwise

 

[caddo kid]

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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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

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

You're lying.

LOFL, a charade could bite you in your over inflated size, FAT ass, and you would never know it was fake

 

[Darkwind]

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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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

You heard wrong. Trump is NOT repealing the 14th amendment. He has no such authority. He is questioning the wrongful interpretation of the Amendment.

He already has the authority to deport the offspring of illegal aliens from our soil.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

You're lying.

LOFL, a charade could bite you in your over inflated size, FAT ass, and you would never know it was fake

Liar says what?

 

[peach174]

The 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

It does not apply to illegals who give birth on U.S. soil.

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This does not, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Anchor babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[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.

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.

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

 

[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.

So how can Congress change the 14th without an Amendment, but the Pres can't change it with an EO?

Congress has the power to create law. To me a law would stand far stronger than an EO.

EO's have to have some basis in a law passed by congrress.

 

[MisterBeale]

Election year politicking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No Amendment may be "repealed" by an EO.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

 

[martybegan]

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.

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Don't see how the draft comes into play,

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?

 

[martybegan]

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.

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Don't see how the draft comes into play,

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

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

How would you vote if they were bundled? i.e. would you approve of an EO that would repeal both?

"This is a simple YES or NO" question."

BUT please post an excuse for your tortured logic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Don't see how the draft comes into play,

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.

And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first,

You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Don't see how the draft comes into play,

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.

And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first,

You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.

Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Don't see how the draft comes into play,

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.

And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first,

You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.

Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?

Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.

 

[martybegan]

Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Don't see how the draft comes into play,

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.

They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.

And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first,

You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.

Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?

Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.

They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.