You are too silly. 
2 Likes
This, coming from the tribe with their hair perpetually on fire claiming that Trump is violating the Constitution on issue after issue.
2 Likes
No, it’s coming from one guy in the tribe. I doubt it’s a prevalent opinion, IMHO.
I certainly disagree.
Great. Clean up your house.
1 Like
I just checked; it’s only Al and one guy in Altoona.
I’ll set up a conference call.
thats why trump is continually in court on his actions.
citizens feel that trump is violating the constitution and brings a federal lawsuit to court to determine if trump is violating or not.
that is the proper way to settle constitutional questions.
win some, lose some.
Allan
guidelines.
I think you truly know how duplicitous your argument is.
1 Like
why.. did not the republicans sue biden when they thought he overstepped the constitution?
what is the difference between dems suing trump and reps suing biden?
and the answer is that there is none.
Allan
By your argument, the suits against trump are because libs think he violated guidelines.
Republicans suing Biden are because they think he broke laws.
2 Likes
presidents have total immunity from criminal laws when performing official tasks.
Allan
Trump mostly wins
3 Likes
not true.
not even close to being true.
yet another whopper by MAGA.
trump loses a majority of cases.
Allan
“The ACLU is making good on our promise to protect civil rights and liberties from the Trump administration’s authoritarian tactics. To date, the ACLU has taken more than 200 legal actions, including filing over 110 lawsuits—53 of them within the first 100 days of the president’s second term. In more than 70 percent of our cases, we’ve successfully defeated, diluted, or delayed President Trump’s unconstitutional agenda. We’re holding the line in courts across the country, forcing this administration to back down when it matters most.“
Allan
no he doesn’t
1 Like
Citizens?
facts state otherwise but continue in you fantasyland of MAGA making.
the ACLU has ripped trump a new one in his first term and it continues into the second one.
Allan
Fact state:
“8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
So, as it turns out and under the “rules”, if a baby is born on American soil and is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, the baby does not then automatically obtain U.S. citizenship.
Additionally, and in accordance with the rules, Trump’s anchor baby policy change titled PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP is within Trump’s Article 2 powers to adopt, and is also in total harmony with our written Constitution .
Those are the “facts” Allan.
2 Likes
yes that is what the 14th states.
you are interpreting it wrong and when SCOTUS issues its opinion next June it will become abundantly clear to you. (maybe)
Allan
Once again you make up ■■■■ as confirmed HERE Posting the words of those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment is not my “interpretation” . . . it’s historical fact.
In discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. Apparently, unwritten policy, and only unwritten policy, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, is recognized as a citizens of the United States upon birth. And as it turns out, President Trump, under his Article 2 powers, may lawfully change existing unwritten policy concerning anchor babies to his Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
2 Likes
you may want to take another look. he’s won a lot more than he’s lost. cases aren’t over till they get to scotus, and his record there is pretty damned good.
5 Likes