LawTalkingGuy

You clearly dont know what leadership is.

You believe the great deal maker and negotiator, who resolves conflicts all over the world, even getting Arab nations to sign peace deals with Israel, cannot convince the American people to support his military plan?

He wouldnt have to convince all of the crazy libs, just enough to give him the political clout he needs.

He should have at least tried

Why didnt we just use The Discombobulator?

quote:

---

But "immigration" was not on the minds of the politicians who passed the 14th amendment. It was about post-slavery America.

---

Immigration WAS on their minds. The primary intent was to address people born as slaves, but the language intentionally includes the children of immigrants. This was fully debated on the Senate floor during adoption of the 14th Amendment.

And most Senators believed they were just stating the common law as everyone understood it.

quote:

---

My argument around the Constitution is that even if you ignore or support whatever you believe the founder's "intent" was for a law - you have to ask the question of whether the law still makes sense in today's world.

---

The Constitution is not a "nose of wax" to be molded to fit whatever you think the Constitution "should" say. We are stuck with what it says, and if it no longer makes sense it needs to be amended.

We are a nation of laws. Whether we are talking about the Constitution or statutory laws, we are stuck with the words in those laws. You dont get to change them just because they no longer make sense...you go through an amendment process instead.

I know, it seems like SCOTUS has changed the meaning of the Constitution over time, but they are still stuck with the words that are written

quote:

---

The 14th amendment was never intended to allow for mass illegal immigration and the occupation of the US. The Constitution and the various amendments were truly drafted for a moral and decent citizenry

---

The 14th Amendment was intentionally drafted to recognize citizenship for the children of immigrants. The Congressional debate expressly confirmed the children of the Chinese immigrants flooding California should be citizens.

Now, this idea of people coming to the US just to have children and then moving back to their homeland probably wasn't given much thought, since such travel wouldnt have made much sense back then.....but here we are.

quote:

---

Congress is the least competent element of our government

---

Congress' incompetence is no excuse to illegally circumvent them.

The Congressional record is very clear that birthright citizenship was intended to apply to the children of immigrants. One Senator objected to the proposed clause, arguing the language would grant citizenship to the children of the Chinese people who were moving in to California. Other Senators said he was right, it would grant them citizenship, and that they fully intended those children to be citizens.

The belief was that the language matched the common law as it was understood at the time: if you are born here, you are a citizen.

Since that time, congress has passed immigration laws and created a class of people who have entered or remained in the country illegally.

The question before the court is whether those immigration laws are capable of denying citizenship to children born here, even though the 14th Amendment expressly grants them citizenship.

I dont see how a law can amend the meaning of the Constitution. It just doesn't work that way.

Anchor babies suck, but we cannot just wish them away. There has to be a legal avenue to change their status, and the most direct avenue is a Constitutional Amendment.

quote:

---

I’ll trust that Trump and the pentagon know what they’re doing.

---

Thats a bold strategy, Cotton. But its an easy way to just reassure yourself that, no matter the circumstances, it will be the right move.

quote:

---

And then we need proof that immigrants are being used to rig elections.

---

Good luck with that.