Trump to sign Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship for illegals

[TheSaboteur]

This is how I got my citizenship. My parents weren't illegal though.

Ladies & gentlemen, this is what desperately trying to be a victim looks like.

Nice try, but you're legal AF.

I'm a better legal American than every poster on this board.

[AbeVigodaLive]

God bless you, sir.

I'm so sick of your biblical bullshit on this site.

Nobody is buying the religious zealotry you're constantly trying to sell us.

How dare you sir! I'm a church-going Catholic raising my children to know the Lord!

Take it back, old man.

If you were a smart Catholic, you'd have realized by now...

Confession one time per year >>>>>> 52 weeks of mass.

[Robceltsfan]

I'm so sick of your biblical bullshit on this site.

Nobody is buying the religious zealotry you're constantly trying to sell us.

How dare you sir! I'm a church-going Catholic raising my children to know the Lord!

Take it back, old man.

If you were a smart Catholic, you'd have realized by now...

Confession one time per year >>>>>> 52 weeks of mass.

[FPL]

[lettherebehouse]

This is how I got my citizenship. My parents weren't illegal though.

Ladies & gentlemen, this is what desperately trying to be a victim looks like.

Nice try, but you're legal AF.

I'm a better legal American than every poster on this board.

Maybe, but my friend ElArtman1973 is a better victim than you.

SONNED!

[AtiliusRegulus]

I thought you crackers were strict Comstitutionalists?

you coloreds are going to be fixed very soon.

[AtiliusRegulus]

he should have drafted the amendment more explicitly than it is in its current state. with lawyers every loophole is exploited.

[FPL]

he should have drafted the amendment more explicitly than it is in its current state. with lawyers every loophole is exploited.

True, but either way a SCOTUS case is long overdue. They ruled on non-citizen legal permanent residents, but a case has never been brought before them regarding children of illegals/travel guests.

[rileymartin]

Try as I might, I see nothing even remotely resembling this within the 14th Amendment...


...And, one thing is for sure, I dont want the constitution interpreted to me by a bunch of racist right wing nut jobs either...

[FPL]

From the Congressional Record of 1866, when the amendment was introduced:

[FPL]

It's worth keeping in mind that taking into account the author of the amendment's intent would be part of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (just like the Federalist Papers are used. From Wiki:

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution's meaning as stable from the time of enactment, which can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[1] The term originated in the 1980s.[2]

Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[3] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view.

It is reasonable to believe, and perhaps likely (though no lock), that a Constitutionalist Supreme Court would rule favorably on this.

[ripper76]

It's worth keeping in mind that taking into account the author of the amendment's intent would be part of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (just like the Federalist Papers are used. From Wiki:

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution's meaning as stable from the time of enactment, which can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[1] The term originated in the 1980s.[2]

Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[3] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view.

It is reasonable to believe, and perhaps likely (though no lock), that a Constitutionalist Supreme Court would rule favorably on this.

That’s all well and good, but how can we best use this whole thing to attack Trump and paint him as a racist and fascist?

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

It is reasonable to believe, and perhaps likely (though no lock), that a Constitutionalist Supreme Court would rule favorably on this.

phpBB [video]

[FPL]

[elartman1973]

[elartman1973]

It's worth keeping in mind that taking into account the author of the amendment's intent would be part of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (just like the Federalist Papers are used. From Wiki:

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution's meaning as stable from the time of enactment, which can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[1] The term originated in the 1980s.[2]

Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[3] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view.

It is reasonable to believe, and perhaps likely (though no lock), that a Constitutionalist Supreme Court would rule favorably on this.

That’s all well and good, but how can we best use this whole thing to attack Trump and paint him as a racist and fascist?

We don't need this for that...there's already enough out there to make such claims

[rileymartin]

This country was FOUNDED on immigration, and, many of our ancestors were "anchor babies"...

I understand the plight. I want to reduce, and in the case of muslims completely eradicate immigration into this country...But, at the end of the day, the Constitution rules the day, and we must follow it...

Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution.

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

This country was FOUNDED on immigration, and, many of our ancestors were "anchor babies"...

I understand the plight. I want to reduce, and in the case of muslims completely eradicate immigration into this country...But, at the end of the day, the Constitution rules the day, and we must follow it...

Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution.

The Supreme Court alters the constitution.

You know the Conservative majority Supreme Court that will be correcting our bad laws for the next 30 years.

[FPL]

An amendment with its interpretation being introduced to Congress and voted on at the time = "Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution"

[Ali Natural]

Should have written his intent in the Amendment then. Hold that L.