trump

[BehindBlueI's]

Donald Trump: Don't change abortion laws - Election 2016 - CBS News

Trump on ...

Wed: Law should punish women for abortion.
Thurs: Law should punish abortionists.
Fri: Law should stay how it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/

Donald Trump took 5 different positions on abortion in 3 days

 

[BugI02]

I encourage you to read the actual cases, they aren't too difficult. Wong Kim Ark, in particular, traces the common law foundation of citizenship. For the sake of Heller, I hope the analysis is not easily overturned.

Plyler is interesting because it is billed as a 5-4 case. However, on the issue of birthright citizenship, it was 9-0. The majority confirmed Wong Kim Ark in a footnote (fn. 10), and the dissent confirmed the principle that children born here are not subject to deportation, although their parents could be (fn. 6 of the dissent). The unbroken line began with the ratification of the 14th amendment through Plyler and to today.

Trump wants to change it - not by amendment, or even legislation - but by interpretation. That's what he said.

Your last paragraph gives me pause, too. With a slight tweak, maybe the "collective right" progressives will "eventually get the language" of the 2A "'right' with enough tries."

The conflict you see between Trump honoring the presidential oath and his interest in bending the law and constitution - does it impact your support at all?

You don't find that just a tad condescending? Usually you are so well spoken

 

[Timjoebillybob]

But maybe the framers actually did say what he thinks they said

"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."

What are the logical consequences of the 'and' in that text? Could it not be taken to mean all the listed conditions must be joint and severally met? Then it would turn on the meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Are people who are not US citizens, who struggle across the border just to give birth, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or are they still citizens of their native country? Born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction...

I think you could make the case that simply making it across the goal line is not enough to qualify your child for automatic citizenship. I see nothing wrong with that assertion being tested in court or even pursuing a constitutional ammendment through the allowable channels. The 14th was appended to the Constitution to right a perceived wrong. Why couldn't the same purpose be countenanced today.

I don't, however, think it is the president's place to be leading the charge on any such attempt if he expects to represent all the people (as he should). I think the bar for an ammendment to the constitution is set high enough to keep the petty or the unserious from succeeding but they should still have a right to try, kind of like wanting a federal balanced budget ammendment.

And should it matter how long a precedent has been deemed viable? Should it matter that the interpretation has held for 120 years. Roe v Wade has been the presiding legal interpretation on abortion for 43 years, at what seniority does it gain immunity from challenge. That is at once the promise and danger of having an activist SCOTUS. They can right perceived wrongs and wrong perceived rights with equal alacrity.

Here is the definition of jurisdiction from 1828 Webster dictionary.

1. The legal power of authority of doing justice in cases of complaint; the power of executing the laws and distributing justice. Thus we speak of certain suits or actions, or the cognizance of certain crimes being within the jurisdiction of a court, that is, within the limits of their authority or commission. Inferior courts have jurisdiction of debt and trespass, or of smaller offenses; the supreme courts have jurisdiction of treason, murder, and other high crimes. jurisdiction is secular or ecclesiastical.

2. Power of governing or legislating. The legislature of one state can exercise no jurisdiction in another.
3. The power or right of exercising authority. Nations claim exclusive jurisdiction on the sea, to the extent of a marine league from the main land or shore.
4. The limit within which power may be exercised.
Jurisdiction, in its most general sense, is the power to make, declare or apply the law; when confined to the judiciary department, it is what we denominate the judicial power, the right of administering justice through the laws, by the means which the laws have provided for that purpose. jurisdiction is limited to place or territory, to persons, or to particular subjects.

Please, there is no need to speculate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

The framers of the 14th amendment made it clear, and this was confirmed by SCOTUS, that "born in" means born in. If someone is in the US, they are subject to US jurisdiction. Period.

Your layering of your own desires for it to say something it does not are exactly what you decry in the "living document" criticism.

That "you could make the case" is weak. That case was attempted. That case lost.

Like it or not, you said you would reconsider if Trump took a certain position. He has taken - and continues to take - such a position. Your comfort with that is your issue.


ETA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

A comment on Trump's "punishing the woman" for an abortion if an abortion or the circumstances of the abortion were illegal...

Boo hoo, Trump says someone breaking a law should be punished!!! What a meanie.

So, how would leftists/statists be acting if instead of abortion we were talking about fully automatic rifles? It might go something like this...

Transcript adapted from the broadcast transcript available at: Trump: "Some Form Of Punishment" For Women if Abortion Becomes Illegal; UPDATE | Video | RealClearPolitics

I have no problem with his original statement. I do have a problem with him flip flopping on it.

From your source "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."

"He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the specific circumstances of his birth, which included that he was the child of foreigners permanently domiciledand resident in the U.S. at the time of birth.


Hardly the particulars that would apply to the 'anchor baby' scenario

Notice the 6 words you didn't highlight, "other than for the Chinese government" Why do you think they included those words in their decision?

Fourteenth Ammendment & Legal Immigration | National Review Online

"Roger, with due respect, It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations,are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.) Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require? "

I posted the definition of jurisdiction that was in use at the time above, there is nothing in it that has to do with allegiance or fealty.

"The conflict you see between Trump honoring the presidential oath and his interest in bending the law and constitution - does it impact your support at all?"

Yes it does

"A President Cruz will hold Congress accountable by enacting a strong Balanced Budget Amendment and requiring that a majority of members approve any major, cost-inducing regulation. And he will reduce costs by instituting a hiring freeze and federal pay reforms."

But this ^, direct from the Ted Cruz website, doesn't make it any easier to like the alternative. I assume he means get congress to enact a Balanced Budget Ammendment not that he will enact one (because POTUS can't enact squat) but one of the long running antiTrump themes is words matter. The requiring a majority thing is really how it already is but furthers the (eronious) idea that he will tell congress how it's going to be. And I assume ammending the Constitution is bad no matter who does it or why if its for political purposes. I happen to believe tinkering with the Constitution to save us because we're 'too weak willed' to balance the budget without it is bad policy and likely unachievable.

My distaste for Kasich is deeply visceral. I've long said I would support the nominee but that would be much easier for me with Cruz than Kasich

Cruz was for the TPP before he felt which way the political winds were blowing and I don't feel any candidate embodies my concerns on fair trade.
Cruz was for the Gang of Eight amnesty bill before he was agin it

The result for me is cognitive dissonance and trying to parse my choices toward least dangerous rather than least distasteful. Thanks

Just out of curiousity, turn the question around. Is there anything that would make you reconsider your antipathy for Trump. Do you think the GOPe winning the battle to have a candidate they like (the party decides) will end with Trump, who after all can be positioned as an existential threat to the party? Or will it mean they will leverage their power in all future campaigns to have their way, which just tightens the lid on the pressure cooker but doesn't turn down the heat

Yep that is a quote from his website, but it goes on to how he would do so, Which is this.

• Sign a Balanced Budget Amendment to start spending responsibly and save future generations from additional crippling debt.
• Sign the REINS Act to ensure that Congress approves of any regulation or rule that would have an impact of $100 million or more.

You are arguing for an original intent interpretation while also stating you are against original intent. Which is it? IMO you are going to vote for Trump no matter what, and are simply using whatever excuses you can try to find.

 

[Hiker1911]

As an alternative, Mrs. Bill Clinton has given no real indication that she will restore jobs to the level that they were during her husband's tenure in the big, White House.

She makes no convincing statements about restoring the middle class, or any jobs that have evaporated in this country in favor of overseas factories, or outsourcing to other countries.

The Republican alternative (whoever that may be) is the choice to make during the General Election this fall. That's my view.

 

[BugI02]

Here is the definition of jurisdiction from 1828 Webster dictionary.

I have no problem with his original statement. I do have a problem with him flip flopping on it.

Notice the 6 words you didn't highlight, "other than for the Chinese government" Why do you think they included those words in their decision?

I posted the definition of jurisdiction that was in use at the time above, there is nothing in it that has to do with allegiance or fealty.

As I posted upthread "Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. ( the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.)" If Wong Kim Arks parents violated US laws what would their punishment have been? Would they have been tried with full constitutional protections? I think not. So would they in fact be 'subject' to US laws or treated as a foreign subject


Yep that is a quote from his website, but it goes on to how he would do so, Which is this.

• Sign a Balanced Budget Amendment to start spending responsibly and save future generations from additional crippling debt.
• Sign the REINS Act to ensure that Congress approves of any regulation or rule that would have an impact of $100 million or more.

I posted the excerpt from Cruz's website because a great deal was being made about Trump wanting to ammend the constitution. It was meant to be an example of Trump not being the only one. Does whether you are concerned about a candidates desire to ammend the constitution depend on whether you agree with the thrust of their intent? Why do you suppose the framers didn't require a balanced budget in the original text? I will grant you that the cases in which he seems to indicate he will interpret the constitution in novel ways are definitely indicative of overreach.

You are arguing for an original intent interpretation while also stating you are against original intent. Which is it? IMO you are going to vote for Trump no matter what, and are simply using whatever excuses you can try to find.

As I also mentioned upthread I consider the 14th to have been added to the constitution for the specific, narrow purpose of dealing with the situation of slaves after the civil war. Everything else is unintended consequences. When I speak of original intent I am primarily speaking of the constitution and the bill of rights. The framers were the original signatories, the so-called founding fathers

The original intent of this exercize was T.Lex asking if I would reconsider my support for Trump, nothing else. In this case if you feel you must win then you have already lost

 

[GREEN607]

Moving on.....

I was just thinking. For several years now, wifey and I have been faithful viewers of some of the programs on Fox News Channel. One show that I watched, most nights, tho wifey DID NOT.... was 'Hannity'. I used to find myself in agreement with many of his positions, politically. I'll admit tho, that I didn't care at all for the way he tended to interrupt his 'guests, after asking them a question.

I don't watch his show any longer. The main reason is, for the last 3 months, he has had Donald Trump on his show.... either in person, via Skype, or by letting Trump 'phone in', at least 3 nights/week. And it is SOOOO obvious to me that Hannity is infatuated with 'the Donald'.
In fact, Sean has his head so far up Donald's backside.... I can't even hear him anymore.

Bye, bye Mr Hannity.

 

[Hoosier8]

So far, the only candidate that has met with the border patrol to find out what they need is Trump. They have never supported any candidate in the past but came out publicly for Trump. Says allot.

 

[jamil]

I think this election is further dividing the factions of the Republican party.

 

[olhorseman]

So far, the only candidate that has met with the border patrol to find out what they need is Trump. They have never supported any candidate in the past but came out publicly for Trump. Says allot.

I believe you are referring to the largest union of border patrol agents and not the entire border patrol. However, they did not state they "support" Trump, the union spokesman only stated "Trump is the only candidate supporting our mission". I don't read this as support being implicitly reciprocal.
Border Patrol Local: Trump 'Only Candidate' Supporting Our Mission
Border Patrol union praises Trump | TheHill
Border Patrol Union: 'Trump Is The Only Candidate' To Support Agents - Fox Nation

 

[Hoosier8]

I believe you are referring to the largest union of border patrol agents and not the entire border patrol. However, they did not state they "support" Trump, the union spokesman only stated "Trump is the only candidate supporting our mission". I don't read this as support being implicitly reciprocal.
Border Patrol Local: Trump 'Only Candidate' Supporting Our Mission
Border Patrol union praises Trump | TheHill
Border Patrol Union: 'Trump Is The Only Candidate' To Support Agents - Fox Nation

The US border patrol union broke form to endorse a candidate during primary season

[h=1]Border patrol union endorses Trump[/h]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Heh.

 

[olhorseman]

The US border patrol union broke form to endorse a candidate during primary season

Border patrol union endorses Trump

I'm still not seeing that the union members voted on endorsing Trump, only that the endorsement came from the union bosses?

 

[HoughMade]

I think this election is further dividing the factions of the Republican party.

It certainly does seem to prove that the Republican party isn't just made of rich white guys. It's made of gullible people of all kinds who will only vote for rich white guys.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump apparently tweeted a campaign video or something, I didn't see it... but it featured content from the video game Mass Effect.

EA pulled the tweet on copyright. Can honestly say I've never seen that before.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/717003103871115267

 

[Super Bee]

Heh.

Good to know Gene has a bit more common sense than that.

 

[Super Bee]

Moving on.....

I was just thinking. For several years now, wifey and I have been faithful viewers of some of the programs on Fox News Channel. One show that I watched, most nights, tho wifey DID NOT.... was 'Hannity'. I used to find myself in agreement with many of his positions, politically. I'll admit tho, that I didn't care at all for the way he tended to interrupt his 'guests, after asking them a question.

I don't watch his show any longer. The main reason is, for the last 3 months, he has had Donald Trump on his show.... either in person, via Skype, or by letting Trump 'phone in', at least 3 nights/week. And it is SOOOO obvious to me that Hannity is infatuated with 'the Donald'.
In fact, Sean has his head so far up Donald's backside.... I can't even hear him anymore.

Bye, bye Mr Hannity.

Agreed.

Talk radio has done the same, everyone picking a side. Rush, Beck, Hannity, Levin all have their guy they are pushing.

 

[printcraft]

Moving on.....

I was just thinking. For several years now, wifey and I have been faithful viewers of some of the programs on Fox News Channel. One show that I watched, most nights, tho wifey DID NOT.... was 'Hannity'. I used to find myself in agreement with many of his positions, politically. I'll admit tho, that I didn't care at all for the way he tended to interrupt his 'guests, after asking them a question.

I don't watch his show any longer. The main reason is, for the last 3 months, he has had Donald Trump on his show.... either in person, via Skype, or by letting Trump 'phone in', at least 3 nights/week. And it is SOOOO obvious to me that Hannity is infatuated with 'the Donald'.
In fact, Sean has his head so far up Donald's backside.... I can't even hear him anymore.

Bye, bye Mr Hannity.

Do you think he has a tingling up his leg like Chrissy Matthews?

 

[GREEN607]

Do you think he has a tingling up his leg like Chrissy Matthews?

YES!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Have a feeling that people who fall for such a blatant con might not be making the best financial decisions in life.

78 percent (of Trump backers) feel they’re falling behind economically.

 

[Hoosier8]

Trump attracts a very diverse crowd, something the Republicans pay lip service to.

[video=youtube_share;Fely6gd2Q-k]http://youtu.be/Fely6gd2Q-k[/video]