Trump Is Right About Birth Citizenship
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Good point. And when Trump drops out, the rest can "walk back" their recent position statements and resume trying to represent a majority of Americans.
yeah right... tell that to the polls finding trump in the lead and the result of bratt taking out republican "leadership" in a "surprise" victory.
I have news for you all.
As long as a politician wants to win... this issue won't be walked back. its the path to victory. the question will be for the voters to separate the establishment liars from the patriots.
in fact this issue is big enough to unite labor with conservative and libertarians into a new party.
its the establishment vs the people.
Its jobs and a future vs being govt broke, less free and having and mixed and corrupt blend of 3rd world economy and 1st world cronies.
I have news for you all.
As long as a politician wants to win... this issue won't be walked back. its the path to victory. the question will be for the voters to separate the establishment liars from the patriots.
in fact this issue is big enough to unite labor with conservative and libertarians into a new party.
its the establishment vs the people.
Its jobs and a future vs being govt broke, less free and having and mixed and corrupt blend of 3rd world economy and 1st world cronies.
Of course it's insane. But, although insane, what is written is clear! Nevertheless, I'm confident that our good Judge Scalia, who doesn't seem to be phased by clarity, and who, in a mere seventy or so pages, by invoking 17th Century English Law, arguing what surely must have been in the minds of those who drafted the amendment --never mind what's written, and simply trash canning the pesky part, had no trouble turning the 2nd Amendment into something he wanted it to say rather then what it did say. In other words, let us not be bothered by what's actually written, but instead concern ourselves with what was intended to be written. Intentions speak louder than words, and who better to tell us what was intended than the good Judge Scalia. He, according to his own admission, you see, is a "strict constructionist"!
I'm certain that such a "strict Constructionist" as he, would be equally adept at "polishing up" the 14th Amendment. But this time he'll have to argue Roman Law instead of English.____________________
What I have found immensely entertaining in Scalia's opinions are the machinations he engages in and the endless flaming hoops he is willing to jump through to arrive at his opinion of intention, despite what may be written. This is of course what ordinary Judges do for a living. They help us interpret the intention of what is written, whenever what is written is unclear or -- as often happens -- inexpertly drafted. What makes Scalia's opinions so endlessly entertaining is his surprising ability to take something that any mere mortal would consider completely clear, and unalterable as to intention, and create a three ring circus in which the Fat Lady is not what you think, but instead the Sword Swallower.
Kind of funny how the doofuses who are constantly trying to shit on the constitution all of a sudden become rigid fundamentalists when it comes to giving illegals citizenship. The hypocrisy runs both ways dummy.
the left at work.
you are aggravated by scalia rewriting things and not accepting the language as written?
How about what Roberts did in support of Obamacare or what the cast of leftists does with almost every law they don't like.
this is the riches trove of bullshit I have seen written by you since you gave us the soros pro pubic argument about he IRS rightly targeting conservatives.
If you wish to step up to acceptable academic levels... please include citations and tell us why what the context of what the founders meant does not matter.
it sounds to me like you are saying when reading shakespeare we should not bother to understand the context in which he was writing? To me that means you prefer to be ignorant and mis half the humor the poltiical barbs and some of drama.
you are aggravated by scalia rewriting things and not accepting the language as written?
How about what Roberts did in support of Obamacare or what the cast of leftists does with almost every law they don't like.
this is the riches trove of bullshit I have seen written by you since you gave us the soros pro pubic argument about he IRS rightly targeting conservatives.
If you wish to step up to acceptable academic levels... please include citations and tell us why what the context of what the founders meant does not matter.
it sounds to me like you are saying when reading shakespeare we should not bother to understand the context in which he was writing? To me that means you prefer to be ignorant and mis half the humor the poltiical barbs and some of drama.
Of course it's insane. But, although insane, what is written is clear! Nevertheless, I'm confident that our good Judge Scalia, who doesn't seem to be phased by clarity, and who, in a mere seventy or so pages, by invoking 17th Century English Law, arguing what surely must have been in the minds of those who drafted the amendment --never mind what's written, and simply trash canning the pesky part, had no trouble turning the 2nd Amendment into something he wanted it to say rather then what it did say. In other words, let us not be bothered by what's actually written, but instead concern ourselves with what was intended to be written. Intentions speak louder than words, and who better to tell us what was intended than the good Judge Scalia. He, according to his own admission, you see, is a "strict constructionist"!
____________________
What I have found immensely entertaining in Scalia's opinions are the machinations he engages in and the endless flaming hoops he is willing to jump through to arrive at his opinion of intention, despite what may be written. This is of course what ordinary Judges do for a living. They help us interpret the intention of what is written, whenever what is written is unclear or -- as often happens -- inexpertly drafted. What makes Scalia's opinions so endlessly entertaining is his surprising ability to take something that any mere mortal would consider completely clear, and unalterable as to intention, and create a three ring circus in which the Fat Lady is not what you think, but instead the Sword Swallower.
pointing out hypocrisy is the ultimate drag. It's all around us, on every tv network and on this very site. Part of learning is realizing where you are a hypocirite and accepting it and changing your ways. But if you start pointing out where others are hypocrites there is no end to it.
I agree. I have no idea what he is talking about.
There is a fundamental legal principle that you cannot benefit from violating the law. For example, you cannot kill your wife and collect the life insurance.
By the same token, it is absurd to say that you can sneak into the country illegally and take advantage of a constitutional provision written to benefit those here legally. Illegals are not "under the jurisdiction" of the country any more than soldiers in an invading army are.
Would the great Constitutional Law scholar Bill O'Reilly say that female soldiers in an invading army could claim birth citizenship for their offspring?
It will be interesting to see how the so-called rigid "Constitutionalists" on this site are going to justify their wanting to "reframe" the 14th Amendment. The very people who previously refused to accept any change whatsoever.
It is only the doofus Right that regards the Constitution as being set in stone. Thinking people regard it as a living document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Last edited:
There is no controlling precedent on this issue. Only Bill O'Reilly seems to think it is settled.