Killer as hero

[jaybird18c 22]

Just now, jakee said:

He says illegal aliens committing crimes in the USA can't be put on trial under US law. Do you agree with that?

Constitutionality of “birthright” citizenship. Stay focused.

[billvon 2,989]

22 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

It’s not in the 14th Amendment. 

Perhaps read the 14th amendment before posting?

[jaybird18c 22]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Perhaps read the 14th amendment before posting?

Perhaps watch the topic of conversation before discounting it?

[billvon 2,989]

3 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

 . . . .

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Perhaps read the 14th amendment before posting?

 

Or not.

[jaybird18c 22]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Or not.

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[kallend 2,026]

Cut and paste is not the same as reading and understanding.

[kallend 2,026]

"Donald Trump had a landslide election"

Really,  49.9% of the popular vote is a "landslide"?

That guy is as unhinged as Jaybird.

Incidentally, the 14th Amendment means exactly what a majority of justices on the SCOTUS says it means.  It doesn't mean what Mr. Levin claims it means.

[jakee 1,489]

32 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

Constitutionality of “birthright” citizenship. Stay focused.

Oh darlin' - you didn't even listen to your own source, did you? Levin's argument is that illegal aliens can't be tried for crimes they commit in the US. Do you agree with him?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

17 minutes ago, kallend said:

Cut and paste is not the same as reading and understanding.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump will use an Executive Order declaring changes to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

That will be challenged in court and will eventually end up in front of SCOTUS. I think it is very likely SCOTUS will take on the case, considering the last ruling on this Amendment was in the late 1800's. It is very conceivable SCOTUS will take a very narrow reading of the qualifier in question. I give it 80/20 odds that SCOTUS will rule birthright citizenship does not exists for children born to parents who are both non-citizens.

The real question is if they will go out of their way to find a path to make that retroactive.

[billvon 2,989]

23 minutes ago, jaybird18c 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So illegal aliens can be tried like regular citizens if they commit crimes - providede the same due-process protections are provided for both citizens and illegal aliens.

[jaybird18c 22]

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

So illegal aliens can be tried like regular citizens if they commit crimes - providede the same due-process protections are provided for both citizens and illegal aliens.

Jurisdiction, with what the original author intended, refers to political allegiance and the foreign government’s jurisdiction over that person. It’s got nothing to do with whether a person commits a crime or is tried in a foreign country.

[jaybird18c 22]

42 minutes ago, billvon said:

So illegal aliens can be tried like regular citizens if they commit crimes - providede the same due-process protections are provided for both citizens and illegal aliens.

Here was one of Levin’s points: Diplomats, students, etc., here on visas (legal) have children here? Are those children now citizens of the US? If not, why not, compared to the children of individuals who come here illegally?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

11 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

Are those children now citizens of the US? If not, why not,

Because a law exists that precludes this. This law has not (yet) been challenged on a constitutional basis and is therefor in force.

Hard to imagine this needs to be explained to an American. Do you not understand how things work in your country?

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Because a law exists that precludes this. This law has not (yet) been challenged on a constitutional basis and is therefor in force.

Hard to imagine this needs to be explained to an American. Do you not understand how things work in your country?

Which law precludes this? I’m not a lawyer.

[billvon 2,989]

27 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

Jurisdiction, with what the original author intended, refers to political allegiance and the foreign government’s jurisdiction over that person. It’s got nothing to do with whether a person commits a crime or is tried in a foreign country.

Here's what you said:

"He’s talking about the unconstitutionality of “birthright” citizenship. To which part do you disagree?"

It is not unconstitutional.  How do we know this?  IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.

If you want to talk about foreign jurisdiction, feel free.  But if you ask questions, and are unhappy when they are answered, you will . . . tend to be unhappy a lot.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, jaybird18c said:

Which law precludes this? I’m not a lawyer.

I am not a lawyer either.

[jaybird18c 22]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

I am not a lawyer either.

You made the assertion, but didn’t answer the question.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, billvon said:

Here's what you said:

"He’s talking about the unconstitutionality of “birthright” citizenship. To which part do you disagree?"

It is not unconstitutional.  How do we know this?  IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.

If you want to talk about foreign jurisdiction, feel free.  But if you ask questions, and are unhappy when they are answered, you will . . . tend to be unhappy a lot.

In all fairness he is talking about the qualifier in the 14th Amendment.

"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. "

 

Courts have generally taken a broad view of what the highlighted portion means. I am pretty sure current SCOTUS would not take a broad view.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

You made the assertion, but didn’t answer the question.

You asked a question. I provided an answer and a direction for you to look in. I know you are used to being told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. But consider this your first lesson in learning to form your own opinions.

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

In all fairness he is talking about the qualifier in the 14th Amendment.

"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. "

 

Courts have generally taken a broad view of what the highlighted portion means. I am pretty sure current SCOTUS would not take a broad view.

I’m pretty sure not too. Because the current view isn’t what the Constitution says. Hence, the discussion on the constitutionality. Roe v. Wade wasn’t constitutional either. Therefore, it’s been aborted. 

[johnhking1 96]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

"Donald Trump had a landslide election"

Really,  49.9% of the popular vote is a "landslide"?

Bill Clinton got 43% of the popular vote but there were 2 other candidates running against him.

George Bush 37.4% and Ross Perot 18.9%

[jaybird18c 22]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You asked a question. I provided an answer and a direction for you to look in. I know you are used to being told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. But consider this your first lesson in learning to form your own opinions.

No you didn’t. You made an assertion followed by a F-ing asshole personal remark. Here’s what you said. I’m waiting on an actual response. 

“Because a law exists that precludes this. This law has not (yet) been challenged on a constitutional basis and is therefor in force.

Hard to imagine this needs to be explained to an American. Do you not understand how things work in your country?”

I’m just curious. Do you still jump regularly and what’s your home DZ?

Edited December 16, 2024 by jaybird18c

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

Roe v. Wade wasn’t constitutional either. Therefore, it’s been aborted.

mmm, not quite. But for OAN a decent explanation.

2 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

Because the current view isn’t what the Constitution says.

lol. The constitution says what the constitution says. The interpretation of what it means is up to SCOTUS and changes over time. (sometimes depending on the size of the RV or the amount of the child's tuition)

[jakee 1,489]

38 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

Jurisdiction, with what the original author intended, refers to political allegiance and the foreign government’s jurisdiction over that person. It’s got nothing to do with whether a person commits a crime or is tried in a foreign country.

Well that’s just a bunch of bollocks, isn’t it? What is a foreign government’s jurisdiction over a person not in their country?

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

mmm, not quite. But for OAN a decent explanation.

lol. The constitution says what the constitution says. The interpretation of what it means is up to SCOTUS and changes over time. (sometimes depending on the size of the RV or the amount of the child's tuition)

Correct. And watch the corrections begin!