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

[ElmerMudd]

Wrong.
Trump is correcting the interpretation of the 14th amendment, which will need to be reviewed by the Courts.
Trump is NOT repealing the 14th.

The 14th amendment is straightforward. You are a Trump minion that cannot think for yourself.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

 

[martybegan]

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.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Not sure where you are even getting this. But Trump is a proud NRA member. He may be trying to get rid of bump stock. But he isn't repealing the 14th Amendment. Nor even the 2nd Amendment.
And Trump isn't anti-guns.

You better listen to the news, even Fox. Trump is threatening to overturn the 14th amendment by executive order.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

It probably does. ​

​

They are here validly, at our invite. ​

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

 

[MrShangles]

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.

Y’all do understand he’s not repealing anything, he’s just gonna make the Supreme Court decide what the word under jurisdiction in that amendment means, because if you’re illegal maybe you’re not under jurisdiction. So the court will decide.
At least Trump is doing something about it to get the ball rolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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..........



.

Government drones, cyber weapons and more will wipe out all the gun toting gun nuts that think they can battle the government with their arsenal in one day

 

[ElmerMudd]

No Amendment may be "repealed" by an EO.

agreed

 

[martybegan]

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.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite.

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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..........



.

Government drones, cyber weapons and more will wipe out all the gun toting gun nuts that think they can battle the government with their arsenal in one day

Exactly.
That's why we won the war in Afghanistan so quickly. DURR......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite.

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite.

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,

Who said they were the only means?

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

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite.

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.

Clarify your view.

Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
documentation do convey US citizenship?

 

[martybegan]

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite.

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.

Clarify your view.

Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
documentation do convey US citizenship?

Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It probably does.

They are here validly, at our invite.

If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.

Clarify your view.

Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
documentation do convey US citizenship?

Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.

Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?

 

[flacaltenn]

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 they buy a "birth tourism" package -- that might just be too obvious for the DHSecurity folks.. LOL...

I wanted to post the numbers for "birthing tourism" visits to USA and found this quote.. The article is a must read for anyone CONDONING this intentional fraud.. 36,000 "birth tourists" a year. NOT COUNTING the ones that waltz across the border illegally..


Immigration Loophole: 'Birth Tourism' on Rise

The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care.

"When determining if an individual will be allowed to enter the U.S., Customs and Border Protection officers take into consideration the date the child is due for delivery and the length of time the individual intends to stay in the U.S.," a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said.
Still, critics say the practice largely goes unchecked and exploits the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves.

 

[Faun]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

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

No. The president isn't a dictator who can modify the Constitution with a stroke of his/her pen.

 

[martybegan]

Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.

Clarify your view.

Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
documentation do convey US citizenship?

Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.

Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?

Diplomats reside on property that is often treated as the soil of their own country, and were actually a carved out exception of the previous SC ruling.

 

[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 they buy a "birth tourism" package -- that might just be too obvious for the DHSecurity folks.. LOL...

I wanted to post the numbers for "birthing tourism" visits to USA and found this quote.. The article is a must read for anyone CONDONING this intentional fraud.. 36,000 "birth tourists" a year. NOT COUNTING the ones that waltz across the border illegally..


Immigration Loophole: 'Birth Tourism' on Rise

The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care.

"When determining if an individual will be allowed to enter the U.S., Customs and Border Protection officers take into consideration the date the child is due for delivery and the length of time the individual intends to stay in the U.S.," a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said.
Still, critics say the practice largely goes unchecked and exploits the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves.

Interesting read.

Of course the real fix is to modify the 14th...

Good luck with that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?

That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.

Clarify your view.

Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
documentation do convey US citizenship?

Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.

Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?

Diplomats reside on property that is often treated as the soil of their own country, and were actually a carved out exception of the previous SC ruling.

Even their spouses?
Even the hospital where their children are delivered?