Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

[UNI88]

Why not?

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. If it is interpreted literally then all people born in the United States are citizens.

The only way to get around that is to argue that the times have changed which is what gun control advocates do. Gun control advocate also like to point out the laws in "other modern industrialized countries".

trump and MAGAts want to erode the 14th Amendment just like gun control advocates want to erode the 2nd. Both sides want to pick and choose which laws and institutions should be respected rather than respecting them all.

That’s not how originalists interpret the law. An orginalist would interpret to be intended understood at the time it was written.

2A has been interpreted by originalists to be understood AT THE TIME to be the individual right to bear arms.

How would the 14th be interpreted to be understood AT THE TIME (shortly after the War Between the States ended) to be anything other than dealing with citizenship for the freed slaves?

Arms AT THE TIME of the 2A were muskets so using the "AT THE TIME" logic you applied to the 14A, only muskets are covered under the 2A.

How much can you twist yourself into a pretzel to justify supporting an attempt to attack the 14A while opposing similar attempts to attack the 2A?

[BDKJMU]

That’s not how originalists interpret the law. An orginalist would interpret to be intended understood at the time it was written.

2A has been interpreted by originalists to be understood AT THE TIME to be the individual right to bear arms.

How would the 14th be interpreted to be understood AT THE TIME (shortly after the War Between the States ended) to be anything other than dealing with citizenship for the freed slaves?

Arms AT THE TIME of the 2A were muskets so using the "AT THE TIME" logic you applied to the 14A, only muskets are covered under the 2A.

How much can you twist yourself into a pretzel to justify supporting an attempt to attack the 14A while opposing similar attempts to attack the 2A?

Because you would understand they aren’t similar attempts if you understood Originalism.

[BDKJMU]

The issue of birthright citizenship, as it pertains to children born in the United States to aliens unlawfully present, remains an open question. Although this fact would appear to be resolved in the public imagination, it has not actually been ruled upon dispositively by the Supreme Court. President Trump's assertion that he would end birthright citizenship by an as-yet-unpublished executive order has brought this issue into focus. Should he issue such an executive order, it would provide the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve the issue once and for all.

Citizenship is currently offered to all children who are born in 39 countries (with the exception of children of diplomats), most of which are in the Western Hemisphere. No country in Western Europe offers birthright citizenship without exceptions to all children born within their borders.1

Many countries, including France, New Zealand, and Australia, have abandoned birthright citizenship in the past few decades.2 Ireland was the last country in the European Union to follow the practice, abolishing birthright citizenship in 2005.3

https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-Overview

[UNI88]

Arms AT THE TIME of the 2A were muskets so using the "AT THE TIME" logic you applied to the 14A, only muskets are covered under the 2A.

How much can you twist yourself into a pretzel to justify supporting an attempt to attack the 14A while opposing similar attempts to attack the 2A?

Because you would understand they aren’t similar attempts if you understood Originalism.

Then please explain to me how originalism applies to the 2nd Amendment and to the 14th Amendment.

And don't tell me what they're doing in other countries. If their gun control rules are irrelevant in 2A debates then their citizenship rules should be irrelevant in 14A debates.

[houndawg]

I haven't heard that expression. Still - people have to make unbiased decisions based on evidence presented. The whole world isn't against Trump. After a while, you have to stop playing the victim. You also have to stop believing Trump is a pure as the driven snow and he & the Republicans are too feckless and weak to stand up to Democrats.

And the smartest thing the judge could do tomorrow is tell Trump that he wants this trial to proceed quickly so that justice for him is not delayed. Don't draw it out - give him quick justice. He should also invoke the gag order - you don't want to Trump's tantrums to poison the juror pool and give Team Trump anything more to bitch and moan about.

After a while, the left needs to stop with the bullshit attempts to get Trump. They keep playing the role of the little child that keeps throwing the tantrum and finally gets their way. A good amount of people are simply tired of all the drama and instead of punishing the child, are willing to let it get its way and vote for anyone else as long as the tantrum stops. That's why the child is throwing the tantrum.

Six years of investigations to include illegal FISA 702 searches and rummaging through his taxes and nothing. Time to man up and punish the child.

Same shit Hillary put up with for 30 years - same result too

[houndawg]

Why not?



The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. If it is interpreted literally then all people born in the United States are citizens.

The only way to get around that is to argue that the times have changed which is what gun control advocates do. Gun control advocate also like to point out the laws in "other modern industrialized countries".

trump and MAGAts want to erode the 14th Amendment just like gun control advocates want to erode the 2nd. Both sides want to pick and choose which laws and institutions should be respected rather than respecting them all.

That’s not how originalists interpret the law. An orginalist would interpret it as to how it was intended to be understood at the time it was written.

2A has been interpreted by originalists to be understood AT THE TIME it was written to be the individual right to keep and bear arms. Ex at the time the phrase ‘well regulated’ meant proficiency in marksmanship..

How would an originalist interpretation of the 14th be interpreted to be understood AT THE TIME (shortly after the War Between the States ended) to be anything other than dealing with citizenship for the freed slaves?

yes, of course it did...

[houndawg]

Speaking of pathetic ...

Newt Gingrich on Donald Trump: One of Trump's great advantages is that he talks at a level where 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade educations can say "oh yeah, I get that."

[BDKJMU]

Because you would understand they aren’t similar attempts if you understood Originalism.

Then please explain to me how originalism applies to the 2nd Amendment and to the 14th Amendment.

And don't tell me what they're doing in other countries. If their gun control rules are irrelevant in 2A debates then their citizenship rules should be irrelevant in 14A debates.

As I understand it 3 of the ways to interpret or argue the Constitution in a somplified way:

Originalist (my arguement) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (FF’s intent at the time) but under 14A there wasn’t to automatic birthright citizenship (intent at the time (realize not the FFs) was it dealt with former slaves).

Textualist (arguement you seem to be making) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (literally in the text) and under 14A there was a right to automatic birthright citizenship (literally in the text).

Pragmatist arguement (the Constitution is a living breathing document thingy) would say under 2A there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms (or there’s no longer). They apply a modern reading to the meaning of the phrase ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’, back then there was only muskets, interpretations have to evolve for modern times, yada yada.
Under 14A I guess they could argue either way, however they wanted to apply it to modern times.

[UNI88]

Then please explain to me how originalism applies to the 2nd Amendment and to the 14th Amendment.

And don't tell me what they're doing in other countries. If their gun control rules are irrelevant in 2A debates then their citizenship rules should be irrelevant in 14A debates.

As I understand it 3 of the ways to interpret or argue the Constitution in a somplified way:

Originalist (my arguement) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (FF’s intent at the time) but under 14A there wasn’t to automatic birthright citizenship (intent at the time (realize not the FFs) was it dealt with former slaves).

Textualist (arguement you seem to be making) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (literally in the text) and under 14A there was a right to automatic birthright citizenship (literally in the text).

Pragmatist arguement (the Constitution is a living breathing document thingy) would say under 2A there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms (or there’s no longer). They apply a modern reading to the meaning of the phrase ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’, back then there was only muskets, interpretations have to evolve for modern times, yada yada.
Under 14A I guess they could argue either way, however they wanted to apply it to modern times.

I am more of a textualist but I also think you're taking liberties with the originalist interpretation. Yes, citizenship for freed slaves was the driving factor behind the 14th amendment but they had an opportunity to specify that in how they wrote the amendment and they didn't do that. The text is broader than just freed slaves and I would argue that it was intentionally so and thus also falls under the originalist argument. I'm willing consider proof that contradicts my opinion.

FTR - it should have been obvious that neither of us were talking about the FFs with regard to the 14th.

[BDKJMU]

As I understand it 3 of the ways to interpret or argue the Constitution in a somplified way:

Originalist (my arguement) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (FF’s intent at the time) but under 14A there wasn’t to automatic birthright citizenship (intent at the time (realize not the FFs) was it dealt with former slaves).

Textualist (arguement you seem to be making) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (literally in the text) and under 14A there was a right to automatic birthright citizenship (literally in the text).

Pragmatist arguement (the Constitution is a living breathing document thingy) would say under 2A there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms (or there’s no longer). They apply a modern reading to the meaning of the phrase ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’, back then there was only muskets, interpretations have to evolve for modern times, yada yada.
Under 14A I guess they could argue either way, however they wanted to apply it to modern times.

I am more of a textualist but I also think you're taking liberties with the originalist interpretation. Yes, citizenship for freed slaves was the driving factor behind the 14th amendment but they had an opportunity to specify that in how they wrote the amendment and they didn't do that. The text is broader than just freed slaves and I would argue that it was intentionally so and thus also falls under the originalist argument. I'm willing consider proof that contradicts my opinion.

FTR - it should have been obvious that neither of us were talking about the FFs with regard to the 14th.

Do you have a problem with 14A birthright citizenship being litigated through the courts/SCOTUS?

[UNI88]

I am more of a textualist but I also think you're taking liberties with the originalist interpretation. Yes, citizenship for freed slaves was the driving factor behind the 14th amendment but they had an opportunity to specify that in how they wrote the amendment and they didn't do that. The text is broader than just freed slaves and I would argue that it was intentionally so and thus also falls under the originalist argument. I'm willing consider proof that contradicts my opinion.

FTR - it should have been obvious that neither of us were talking about the FFs with regard to the 14th.

Do you have a problem with 14A birthright citizenship being litigated through the courts/SCOTUS?

No but I think their rulings should be obvious if they rule based on law not ideology. After those attempts fail there is a process to change it.

[BDKJMU]

Do you have a problem with 14A birthright citizenship being litigated through the courts/SCOTUS?

No but I think their rulings should be obvious if they rule based on law not ideology. After those attempts fail there is a process to change it.

Well I agree only because there's not 5 Originalist judges on the court.

[UNI88]

No but I think their rulings should be obvious if they rule based on law not ideology. After those attempts fail there is a process to change it.

Well I agree only because there's not 5 Originalist judges on the court.

I think a true originalist like Scalia would agree with me. A putz like Thomas will use faux originalism to try and justify his ideologically based opinions.

[BDKJMU]

Well I agree only because there's not 5 Originalist judges on the court.

I think a true originalist like Scalia would agree with me. A putz like Thomas will use faux originalism to try and justify his ideologically based opinions.

I doubt any true originalist would agree with you.

[UNI88]

I think a true originalist like Scalia would agree with me. A putz like Thomas will use faux originalism to try and justify his ideologically based opinions.

I doubt any true originalist would agree with you.

There aren’t any on the SCOTUS since Scalia died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Then please explain to me how originalism applies to the 2nd Amendment and to the 14th Amendment.

And don't tell me what they're doing in other countries. If their gun control rules are irrelevant in 2A debates then their citizenship rules should be irrelevant in 14A debates.

As I understand it 3 of the ways to interpret or argue the Constitution in a somplified way:

Originalist (my arguement) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (FF’s intent at the time) but under 14A there wasn’t to automatic birthright citizenship (intent at the time (realize not the FFs) was it dealt with former slaves).

Textualist (arguement you seem to be making) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (literally in the text) and under 14A there was a right to automatic birthright citizenship (literally in the text).

Pragmatist arguement (the Constitution is a living breathing document thingy) would say under 2A there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms (or there’s no longer). They apply a modern reading to the meaning of the phrase ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’, back then there was only muskets, interpretations have to evolve for modern times, yada yada.
Under 14A I guess they could argue either way, however they wanted to apply it to modern times.

Their intent with the 2nd was based on their desire to avoid the expense of "..standing armies and foreign entanglements.." and that no professional army was necessary because we intended to only play defense and should that be necessary the government would assemble a well-regulated militia to deal with the invaders. And back then there weren't "only muskets". There were lots of artillery pieces for land and sea - we didn't win the Revolution with muskets alone - none of which were kept at the private residences of the militia members that constituted the artillery units or naval gun crews.

Today we have a professional military, foreign entanglements, a vanishingly small chance of being activated for some national defense purpose, and, even if that were to happen somehow, they will provide you with the proper tools to do the job. The real stuff. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and I agree with that part - but there have always been limits to what arms can be owned and the same people that are absolutists on the 2nd amendment try to hand out some tired bullshit about the meaning of the "well regulated" part
.

[GannonFan]

As I understand it 3 of the ways to interpret or argue the Constitution in a somplified way:

Originalist (my arguement) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (FF’s intent at the time) but under 14A there wasn’t to automatic birthright citizenship (intent at the time (realize not the FFs) was it dealt with former slaves).

Textualist (arguement you seem to be making) would say under 2A there is an individual right to bear arms (literally in the text) and under 14A there was a right to automatic birthright citizenship (literally in the text).

Pragmatist arguement (the Constitution is a living breathing document thingy) would say under 2A there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms (or there’s no longer). They apply a modern reading to the meaning of the phrase ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’, back then there was only muskets, interpretations have to evolve for modern times, yada yada.
Under 14A I guess they could argue either way, however they wanted to apply it to modern times.

Their intent with the 2nd was based on their desire to avoid the expense of "..standing armies and foreign entanglements.." and that no professional army was necessary because we intended to only play defense and should that be necessary the government would assemble a well-regulated militia to deal with the invaders. And back then there weren't "only muskets". There were lots of artillery pieces for land and sea - we didn't win the Revolution with muskets alone - none of which were kept at the private residences of the militia members that constituted the artillery units or naval gun crews.

Today we have a professional military, foreign entanglements, a vanishingly small chance of being activated for some national defense purpose, and, even if that were to happen somehow, they will provide you with the proper tools to do the job. The real stuff. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and I agree with that part - but there have always been limits to what arms can be owned and the same people that are absolutists on the 2nd amendment try to hand out some tired bullshit about the meaning of the "well regulated" part
.

Not entirely true. There are several Federalist Papers (#8, #24, as well as #46, including both Hamilton and Madison) that talk about standing armies and none of those sources say we should not have a standing army nor that the 2A precludes them. In fact, those sources argue for the presence of both a standing army and a floating navy, albeit moderate-sized to do the defensive job as you indicate and not large enough to pose a threat to the individual states. I do agree that 2A absolutists, though, have misinterpreted the amendment.

[UNI88]

Their intent with the 2nd was based on their desire to avoid the expense of "..standing armies and foreign entanglements.." and that no professional army was necessary because we intended to only play defense and should that be necessary the government would assemble a well-regulated militia to deal with the invaders. And back then there weren't "only muskets". There were lots of artillery pieces for land and sea - we didn't win the Revolution with muskets alone - none of which were kept at the private residences of the militia members that constituted the artillery units or naval gun crews.

Today we have a professional military, foreign entanglements, a vanishingly small chance of being activated for some national defense purpose, and, even if that were to happen somehow, they will provide you with the proper tools to do the job. The real stuff. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and I agree with that part - but there have always been limits to what arms can be owned and the same people that are absolutists on the 2nd amendment try to hand out some tired bullshit about the meaning of the "well regulated" part
.

Not entirely true. There are several Federalist Papers (#8, #24, as well as #46, including both Hamilton and Madison) that talk about standing armies and none of those sources say we should not have a standing army nor that the 2A precludes them. In fact, those sources argue for the presence of both a standing army and a floating navy, albeit moderate-sized to do the defensive job as you indicate and not large enough to pose a threat to the individual states. I do agree that 2A absolutists, though, have misinterpreted the amendment.

Haven't both sides misinterpreted the 2A?

I would also argue that the 14A is much clearer than the 2A which is why any attempt by trump or others to end birthright citizenship in the courts will fail. What's it that gun rights advocates say (and that I agree with)? That's right, "use the existing process to amend the Constitution or STFU." applies to the 14A as well.

[BDKJMU]

Not entirely true. There are several Federalist Papers (#8, #24, as well as #46, including both Hamilton and Madison) that talk about standing armies and none of those sources say we should not have a standing army nor that the 2A precludes them. In fact, those sources argue for the presence of both a standing army and a floating navy, albeit moderate-sized to do the defensive job as you indicate and not large enough to pose a threat to the individual states. I do agree that 2A absolutists, though, have misinterpreted the amendment.

Haven't both sides misinterpreted the 2A?

I would also argue that the 14A is much clearer than the 2A which is why any attempt by trump or others to end birthright citizenship in the courts will fail. What's it that gun rights advocates say (and that I agree with)? That's right, "use the existing process to amend the Constitution or STFU." applies to the 14A as well.

I agree...AFTER it has been litigated through the courts, as 2A has..

[UNI88]

Haven't both sides misinterpreted the 2A?

I would also argue that the 14A is much clearer than the 2A which is why any attempt by trump or others to end birthright citizenship in the courts will fail. What's it that gun rights advocates say (and that I agree with)? That's right, "use the existing process to amend the Constitution or STFU." applies to the 14A as well.

I agree...AFTER it has been litigated through the courts, as 2A has..

That's fair.

[GannonFan]

Haven't both sides misinterpreted the 2A?

I would also argue that the 14A is much clearer than the 2A which is why any attempt by trump or others to end birthright citizenship in the courts will fail. What's it that gun rights advocates say (and that I agree with)? That's right, "use the existing process to amend the Constitution or STFU." applies to the 14A as well.

I agree...AFTER it has been litigated through the courts, as 2A has..

That's just made up crap. It's best to not look for legal advice, especially Constitutional legal advice, from Trump or anyone associated with Trump.

The 14th amendment, and especially the Citizenship Clause, has been litigated through the courts and it's been overwhelmingly on the side of birthright citizenship. The fact that it's been so overwhelmingly so in favor of birthright citizenship that it's not even been contested for many years now. It only started being talked about more as an issue as certain conservative groups, not happy with the amount of brown people entering the country, started to float it again as a real issue. There are at least 6 SCOTUS level cases that either dealt with this directly, or touched on it, and they all overwhelmingly went to the side saying the 14th amendment, like the English common law that was in place before it, clearly affirms birthplace citizenship.

We can debate all you want if we should have birthplace citizenship and if we should amend the Constitution to overturn what's clearly laid out in the 14th amendment, but there's little to no debate in serious legal circles regarding whether it's currently there. It is.

[Skjellyfetti]

It has never been adjudicated through the fed courts, at least not by SCOTUS.

false

Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment opens with the Citizenship Clause. It reads, “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.” The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this key provision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen. This case highlighted a disagreement between the Justices over the precise meaning of one key phrase in the Citizenship Clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-cons ... %20citizen.

[BDKJMU]

I agree...AFTER it has been litigated through the courts, as 2A has..

That's just made up crap. It's best to not look for legal advice, especially Constitutional legal advice, from Trump or anyone associated with Trump.

The 14th amendment, and especially the Citizenship Clause, has been litigated through the courts and it's been overwhelmingly on the side of birthright citizenship. The fact that it's been so overwhelmingly so in favor of birthright citizenship that it's not even been contested for many years now. It only started being talked about more as an issue as certain conservative groups, not happy with the amount of brown people entering the country, started to float it again as a real issue. There are at least 6 SCOTUS level cases that either dealt with this directly, or touched on it, and they all overwhelmingly went to the side saying the 14th amendment, like the English common law that was in place before it, clearly affirms birthplace citizenship.

We can debate all you want if we should have birthplace citizenship and if we should amend the Constitution to overturn what's clearly laid out in the 14th amendment, but there's little to no debate in serious legal circles regarding whether it's currently there. It is.

And in none of those cases has SCOTUS explicitly ruled on whether the Citizenship Clause applies children of illegal immigrants (the most often cited case that dealt with the birthright citizenship, the 1898 case, the Chinese parents were non citizen legal immigrants). And there are some constitutional scholars that argue the intent of the authors of the Citizenship Clause of 14A was not include children born to illegal immigrants.

[BDKJMU]

It has never been adjudicated through the fed courts, at least not by SCOTUS.

false

Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment opens with the Citizenship Clause. It reads, “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.” The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this key provision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen. This case highlighted a disagreement between the Justices over the precise meaning of one key phrase in the Citizenship Clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-cons ... %20citizen.

I replied to GF before I read your post. Like I posted above, the parents in that 1898 case weren't in the US illegally. When I said SCOTUS had never ruled on it, I should have stated for children of illegal immigrants.

[houndawg]

Their intent with the 2nd was based on their desire to avoid the expense of "..standing armies and foreign entanglements.." and that no professional army was necessary because we intended to only play defense and should that be necessary the government would assemble a well-regulated militia to deal with the invaders. And back then there weren't "only muskets". There were lots of artillery pieces for land and sea - we didn't win the Revolution with muskets alone - none of which were kept at the private residences of the militia members that constituted the artillery units or naval gun crews.

Today we have a professional military, foreign entanglements, a vanishingly small chance of being activated for some national defense purpose, and, even if that were to happen somehow, they will provide you with the proper tools to do the job. The real stuff. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and I agree with that part - but there have always been limits to what arms can be owned and the same people that are absolutists on the 2nd amendment try to hand out some tired bullshit about the meaning of the "well regulated" part
.

Not entirely true. There are several Federalist Papers (#8, #24, as well as #46, including both Hamilton and Madison) that talk about standing armies and none of those sources say we should not have a standing army nor that the 2A precludes them. In fact, those sources argue for the presence of both a standing army and a floating navy, albeit moderate-sized to do the defensive job as you indicate and not large enough to pose a threat to the individual states. I do agree that 2A absolutists, though, have misinterpreted the amendment.

I didn't say anything about the 2nd amendment precluding anything. I said they wanted to avoid the expense of keeping a standing army and I also mentioned that "keep and bear arms" didn't extend to heavier weapons back then either.