- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump trying to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:32 am to ohiovol
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:32 am to ohiovol
quote:
Trump is about to get raped by his own court if he tries this shite.
Man, let's hope it's not as brutal as that predicted raping he got for his Travel Ban.
Whatever happened to that?
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:34 am
1
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:33 am to kingbob
quote:
They are entitled to be defended by their nation's embassy. If that nation demands that the U.S. turn their citizen over to them we have to do so, absent some agreement otherwise. It's their citizen. Now, if their embassy chooses not to help them, we can prosecute them, as we could anyone else, just as if you went to Thailand and made fun of the King, they could throw you in prison. However, being an American citizen, you could petition the embassy to help get you out. The U.S. could demand Thailand turn you over to them. You are a subject of the U.S., not Thailand.
Thank you for proving that you are completely clueless about this topic.
Everything you just said is 100% false. It may pertain to those who have diplomatic immunity. But an ordinary citizen is entitled to zero protection from prosecution under US laws or the laws of the host county in which they reside. They are not entitled to be "defended" by the US Embassy. What an utterly clueless remark. What they are entitled to is a visit from a US consular officer to make sure that tey have representation and that their basic rights...food, health care, etc.,...are not being violated. The US government can't just demand that the Thai government free a prisoner. They may demand, but Thailand doesn't have to do shite.
The American kid who got cane in Singapore several years ago that Bill Clinton tried to intervene for? Why don't you contact MIchael Fay and ask him if his backside has healed?
I'm guessing you've never met a US consular officer.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:36 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:34 am to cokebottleag
What makes it even more interesting is that The Chevron Doctrine is hugely unpopular among conservative jurists and scholars. They hate the idea that administrations are granted carte blanche to interpret intentionally vague statutes, basically ceding power from the legislature to completely unaccountable bureaucrats. So, even if the progressives get the victory they want, stopping Trump, they would have to destroy one of the lynchpins of "deep state" power (Chevron deference for administrative agencies) in order to do so. If Trump takes this path, rather than the executive order path, then he wins either way.
Either, he is successful in ending birthright citizenship (or at least forces Congress to pass a statute to maintain it), or the administrative regulatory state gets a massive, permanent curtailment of its near unlimited power via overturning Chevron and ending the deference doctrine. That would enable Trump to really go after the EPA, DEA, FDA, Army Corps of Engineers, OSHA, etc.
Either, he is successful in ending birthright citizenship (or at least forces Congress to pass a statute to maintain it), or the administrative regulatory state gets a massive, permanent curtailment of its near unlimited power via overturning Chevron and ending the deference doctrine. That would enable Trump to really go after the EPA, DEA, FDA, Army Corps of Engineers, OSHA, etc.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:51 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:34 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Under the jurisdiction of the US? You tell me. This is the only remaining factor.
And a pretty big one. Is a child of parents who are citizens of another country also a citizen of that country? If so, then the child may not be “under the jurisdiction of the US” as applied to the 14th Amendment.
Again...you are being pretty aggressive...while being ignorant of the procedural history.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:35 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Comparing a statute to a constitutional amendment is like the epitome of comparing apples and oranges.
Congress has the power to interpret Constitutional Amendments via statute. They also have the power to propose Constitutional Amendments via statute.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:35 am to ohiovol
quote:
Trump is about to get raped by his own court if he tries this shite.
Possibly. What is your definition of “under the jurisdiction” as applied to the 14th Amendment?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:36 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
Whatever happened to that?
The case is Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
“8USC 1182(f) and 1185(a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.”
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:36 am to cokebottleag
quote:
Look at the timing here, just after Kavabaw gets seated. You don't think this might have been planned?
In the interviews for the nominee to determine who Trump would nominate, you don't think he asked each justice: Suppose I challenged the 14th interpretation. How would you rule?
As if he doesn’t just randomly say shite that pops into his head.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:36 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Here's a clue...coming from someone who lived in 7 other countries over almost 20 years...still filing a`US tax return every year and voting in US elections...when you set foot inside another country, you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of that country, whether you like it or not. Jurisdiction and allegiance aren't the same thing. If you don't believe that, get in touch with some of the Americans in foreign prisons.
again. Your laymen’s definition may not be the correct one. Is it that hard to grasp?Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:37 am to papasmurf1269
Completely and utterly the wrong way to go about it. If you don't like an amendment, go through congress.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:37 am to BBONDS25
quote:
And a pretty big one. Is a child of parents who are citizens of another country also a citizen of that country? If so, then the child may not be “under the jurisdiction of the US” as applied to the 14th Amendment.
Again...you are being pretty aggressive...while being ignorant of the procedural history.
If you can't grasp the basic differences between citizenship and jurisdiction, there really is no helping you.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:37 am to BamaGradinTn
The difference is, that if that kid were not a subject of the U.S. government, Bill Clinton couldn't have even tried to intervene at all.
Whether or not those protections are really that meaningful does not change the fact that those protections exist for citizens of other nations when they're abroad.
Whether or not those protections are really that meaningful does not change the fact that those protections exist for citizens of other nations when they're abroad.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:38 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Possibly. What is your definition of “under the jurisdiction” as applied to the 14th Amendment?
Everyone here is under the jurisdiction of the USA. The only people that didn’t apply to were those living on reservations that were technically considered sovereign.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:38 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
You're out of your element, Dale. Just stop, man.
My..what a compelling argument you make!
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:39 am to BBONDS25
quote:
again. Your laymen’s definition may not be the correct one. Is it that hard to grasp?
Spare us the face saving attempts. If your position is correct, Bill Clinton would have successfully kept MIchael Fay's arse from being beaten by Singaporean authorities.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:40 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
If you can't grasp the basic differences between citizenship and jurisdiction, there really is no helping yo
Take it up with the ones who actually wrote the amendment. They described what “under the jurisdiction” meant. Citizenship to a foreign nation was the precise distincrion of “under the jurisdiction” or not.
Your post above is literall 180 degrees from what those who wrote the law said. Yet it is me who needs help! The Supreme Court has acknowledged “under the jurisdiction” is way too broad and must be considered as applied to the amendment or statute.
You are ignorant and basing your entire hubristic “argument” on your personal laymens definition. When even a modicum if research will give you all the info you need to stop being so ignorant.
Pretty silly mistake.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:42 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:41 am to kingbob
quote:
The difference is, that if that kid were not a subject of the U.S. government, Bill Clinton couldn't have even tried to intervene at all.
Whether or not those protections are really that meaningful does not change the fact that those protections exist for citizens of other nations when they're abroad.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that the kid wasn't under Singaporean jurisdiction and that the Singaporean government can be forced to give up jurisdiction over him.
Where do people think the word "jurisdiction" comes from, anyway?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:42 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Pretty silly mistake.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:42 am to BBONDS25
Wouldn’t it be great if Ginsburg was replaced by the time this was ruled on?
Man. WINNING!!
Man. WINNING!!
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:44 am to ohiovol
quote:
Everyone here is under the jurisdiction of the USA. The only people that didn’t apply to were those living on reservations that were technically considered sovereign
Well...this definition is not consistent with the definition applied by those who wrote the amendment. Clearly their intention is not binding, and the court can decide what definition will apply. However, the court has akncowedged “under the jurisdiction” can have many “too many” meanings.
Again. Not sure why this makes y’all mad. It’s a fact the definition by the ones who passed the amendment is different than yours. It is a fact the Supreme Court said there can be many meanings.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News