President is really winding up the anti-immigrant crowd - order to end birthright citizenship

[SlowSpyder]

So when did Obama issue the EO that bans firearms? If he attempted such a thing that would be an act of fascism regardless of the arguments.

So Trump announces plans to issue an EO that replaces the 14th with what he wants. That attempt would be an act of fascism regardless of the arguments.

It's not that there are different interpretations of the Constitution or law, but we are all bound by them and I would call for the immediate impeachment and removal from office of Obama if he'd done this.

I expect you to do the same with Trump or you will have declared yourself a supporter of American fascism by supporting one of announced fascist intent.

This goes beyond what Amendment we're discussing, we're talking about a direct attack on the Constitution by an individual, something far more grave than immigration. If you don't condemn you approve. If you choose to not decide you'll still have made a choice. And this.



Patriot or Quisling? It's one or the other.

Firearms rights didn't really get restricted under Obama. In fact he expanded some rights (carrying on trains, state parks). Of course he did look into banning certain kinds of .223 / 5.56 ammo that would have harmed firearms owners.

I posted an article earlier in the thread where at least someone was questioning a clause in the 14th. I'm very much for our constitution and would like to see common sense immigration laws changed. But, if Trump can legally do this with an EO as a bandaid in the mean time, maybe that'll prompt congress to act.

I remember when congress used to compromise and actually pass legislation. We need them to do that again.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That's insane. Replacing an amendment with his views independent of judicial review? No one, Left or Right has ever done such a thing, with such baldfaced intent. This is an act of enormity not seen in American history.

Edit- "If he can do this legally with an EO" means the next President who may be anti-gun can force you to surrender weapons upon the pain of whatever penalty he or she invokes.

Congrats.

Just think, the left has set the precedent. Amendments don't really mean what they say plainly on paper. How many times has the left attacked and whittled away the 2A over the decades? Don't be so surprised that eventually what comes around, goes around. And I assure you, this isn't ideal to me, we have a method for passing laws. But the left has set the precedent, don't pretend to be a victim for having to possibly swallow down some of your own medicine.

 

[fskimospy]

Firearms rights didn't really get restricted under Obama. In fact he expanded some rights (carrying on trains, state parks). Of course he did look into banning certain kinds of .223 / 5.56 ammo that would have harmed firearms owners.

I posted an article earlier in the thread where at least someone was questioning a clause in the 14th. I'm very much for our constitution and would like to see common sense immigration laws changed. But, if Trump can legally do this with an EO as a bandaid in the mean time, maybe that'll prompt congress to act.

I remember when congress used to compromise and actually pass legislation. We need them to do that again.

Yep, and that argument was a failure.

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

Texas officials had argued that illegal aliens were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and thus could not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state."

 

[fskimospy]

Just think, the left has set the precedent. Amendments don't really mean what they say plainly on paper. How many times has the left attacked and whittled away the 2A over the decades? Don't be so surprised that eventually what comes around, goes around. And I assure you, this isn't ideal to me, we have a method for passing laws. But the left has set the precedent, don't pretend to be a victim for having to possibly swallow down some of your own medicine.

Of course! Nobody, and I mean nobody is stupid enough to think amendments to the Constitution should be taken literally. There is literally not a single american who is that impossibly dumb.

After all, that would mean laws against espionage would be illegal. The Constitution is VERY clear that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech and telling a hostile foreign power the nuclear launch codes is unarguably speech. Why are people saying espionage laws are constitutional when the amendment plainly says they aren't?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yep, and that argument was a failure.

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

I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not, but previous decisions can be reversed or different circumstances can be argued that effectively void earlier decisions.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Of course! Nobody, and I mean nobody is stupid enough to think amendments to the Constitution should be taken literally. There is literally not a single american who is that impossibly dumb.

After all, that would mean laws against espionage would be illegal. The Constitution is VERY clear that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech and telling a hostile foreign power the nuclear launch codes is unarguably speech. Why are people saying espionage laws are constitutional when the amendment plainly says they aren't?

Sounds like you are arguing that there can be a lot of wiggle room in the 14A.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not, but previous decisions can be reversed or different circumstances can be argued that effectively void earlier decisions.

By that logic no one can dismiss any argument ever.

The argument you put forth was tried and rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court. You're welcome to try and fail again if you want though!

 

[fskimospy]

Sounds like you are arguing that there can be a lot of wiggle room in the 14A.

All amendments can be and are interpreted every day. I find it amusing that when it comes to the second amendment you declare that it must be enforced exactly as it's stated on paper but don't feel that way about the 14th amendment. This is because you're a dishonest hack and/or you're reasoning emotionally instead of logically.

No amendment is enforced exactly to the letter on the page, ever, and they never will be. Only an extremely stupid person would think otherwise. Can you state for us that you understand that no amendment will ever be enforced exactly as it is written?

 

[SlowSpyder]

All amendments can be and are interpreted every day. I find it amusing that when it comes to the second amendment you declare that it must be enforced exactly as it's stated on paper but don't feel that way about the 14th amendment. This is because you're a dishonest hack and/or you're reasoning emotionally instead of logically.

No amendment is enforced exactly to the letter on the page, ever, and they never will be. Only an extremely stupid person would think otherwise. Can you state for us that you understand that no amendment will ever be enforced exactly as it is written?

Sounds like you are arguing for a lot of room for interpretation of the 14A. Cool, bruh.

 

[Jhhnn]

Firearms rights didn't really get restricted under Obama. In fact he expanded some rights (carrying on trains, state parks). Of course he did look into banning certain kinds of .223 / 5.56 ammo that would have harmed firearms owners.

I posted an article earlier in the thread where at least someone was questioning a clause in the 14th. I'm very much for our constitution and would like to see common sense immigration laws changed. But, if Trump can legally do this with an EO as a bandaid in the mean time, maybe that'll prompt congress to act.

I remember when congress used to compromise and actually pass legislation. We need them to do that again.

From your link of duh-version-

While it’s true that the ATF proposed a ban on “green tip” ammunition in February 2015, President Obama was not involved through executive action of any description.

The GOP will not reform immigration law. It's one of their perma-issues, extremely useful to froth up the Faithful every two years. The Faithful have been conditioned into a headset where no honest solution is acceptable to them, because that would necessitate a broad amnesty for the illegals & their American families who have lived peaceably among us for more than a decade. Anybody who thinks we'll round up & deport 11M illegals or make it impossible to feed their American kids is out of their fucking mind. But that's what they want.

 

[fskimospy]

Sounds like you are arguing for a lot of room for interpretation of the 14A. Cool, bruh.

Good luck with that, haha. Meanwhile I'm glad you've embraced a lot of room for interpretation of the second. Thanks!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I am sorry that common sense is so painful for you.

These articles might make your head explode:

Good article on the real reasons why Democrat politicians have shifted on immigration, but have done so inconsistently and often out of political opportunism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

Article on how immigrants depress wages for low skill services, and those who benefit most are those paying for said services:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

Ah the logical fallacy defense - "appeal to common sense". AKA I got nothing.

I've been reading The Atlantic for 20 years, don't come in here throwing cherry picked articles about immigration unless you are going to refer to all the relevant Atlantic articles... which I must point out said article has nothing to do with what we are discussing i.e. liberals benefitting financially from illegal immigration more than other groups and looking the other way.

My original challenge stands, and I stick by my position - your rhetoric is stupid and unproveable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just think, the left has set the precedent. Amendments don't really mean what they say plainly on paper. How many times has the left attacked and whittled away the 2A over the decades? Don't be so surprised that eventually what comes around, goes around. And I assure you, this isn't ideal to me, we have a method for passing laws. But the left has set the precedent, don't pretend to be a victim for having to possibly swallow down some of your own medicine.

No President that I know of in the history of the United States has ever suggested he has the lawful authority to replace the Constitution with his own interpretation with an Executive Order. None. There's no "what goes around comes around here" since that means it's happening again. No, never.

To be sure I'm not in favor of much of what some on the Left have been arguing for regarding the Second nor do I agree with their legal lines of reasoning. BUT what has been done is subject to the scrutiny of the Courts, and any who argue that Obama (or ANY President) could effectively void the entire judiciary's determinations throughout our entire history regarding the 2nd? Fuck no. Impeach and remove that bastard and those who support an extra-constitutional process are treasonous in nature and fascists at heart. I would treat them exactly as I would Trump and supporters of such a notion.

I've heard some people supporting sentiments which are pretty poor, seizing anything that isn't a flintlock for example, and I think their nuts. I have yet to have another President state what Trump contemplates for any reason at any time regardless of ideology. It's astounding.

As far as "legally", at this point Trump could say "I can go murder anyone at any time for any reason and I am creating an executive order to that effect", and you could just as well say "well if it's legal".

Dude, that's absurd. There is no precedent, no legal argument known, nothing of substance, which allows for either. Nothing. Yes Santa's Elves may exist, just like the legal authority to usurp the judiciary, Congress and defy the Constitution.

This "legality" is something that only one who can literally walk on water could successfully defend. Jesus you ain't.

Now we come to consequences.

If Trump's supposed authority is upheld by the SCOTUS (because that's where it has to go) then your argument of legality will have legs regardless of what I think, but Trump will have to present and defend his legal arguments, perhaps in person. To effectively rewrite the entire Constitutional system of government by effectively elevating a President above all others, is going to be a hard row to hoe. Trump and every President can do anything he wants by an EO.

If arguments presented without a sound legal basis? Some specious attack against the rule of law? Then what? One thing "I guess he messed up" with a pass in wholly inadequate. We're at the demonstrated fascist stage.

Without regards to Dems, or guns or immigrants, what is the proper penalty to give ANY President who attempts to wrest power from the other branches and replace the Constitution with his own interpretations without any legal basis except for his claim to be able to do so? Remember, at this point "legal" isn't.

There is only one proper penalty, impeachment and removal.

This is where you show if you are a Patriot, and no patriotism applies EVER to any individual, it is to the United States of America and exemplified by the Oaths of Office.

This is the one which applies to Trump and all other Presidents.



"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He will have materially violated that Oath, his obligation, and patriotic duty.

There are other Oaths of Office.


"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God"

That is the duty of Federal officials. There is no "Trump's Justive Department", no "Trump's Militiay", no "Trump's anything", except for the Office to which he is also obligated to uphold his Oath.

For completeness and to head off any possible nonsense there is an alternative Oath in some States for the National Guard.

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ on which I am about to enter, so help me God"

Note that the first things listed are "Constitutions" and every single person who takes this Oath has the obligation to understand that if an Executive issues an order based on an illegality which has been determined to be unconstitutional, that they have a DUTY to disobey.

No buts about it, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and binds the branches and individuals in government, and none shall set themselves above it.

So back to the matter at hand. If Trump is found to have committed an unlawful or unconstitutional act by EO, will you be a Patriot and demand Congress remove him, or will you dissemble, divert, or defend and thereby support fascism?

There is no third choice.

 

[UNCjigga]

But, if Trump can legally do this with an EO as a bandaid in the mean time, maybe that'll prompt congress to act.

That worked out so well for DACA, didn't it??

LOL, hilarious to see a Trumper saying this when they were calling Obama a tyrant for an EO so much smaller in scale.

 

[dyna]

I didn't research this significantly but I think it would be fairly easy to find executive orders that contradict the Constitutional interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#Executive_Orders

During his term, President Clinton also used the power of executive orders to implement gun control policies. On April 6, 1998 Clinton signed an order that permanently banned the importation of more than 50 types of semiautomatic "assault weapons".[12] In 1999 White House domestic policy chief Bruce D. Reed said, "The country is tired of waiting for Congress to respond to the tragedy in Littleton. The administration is going to do every thing in its power to make progress on guns."[13] Many accused Clinton of overuse of the executive power on gun control issues.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I didn't research this significantly but I think it would be fairly easy to find executive orders that contradict the Constitutional interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#Executive_Orders

Key word to take away is “imports”

 

[Jhhnn]

That worked out so well for DACA, didn't it??

LOL, hilarious to see a Trumper saying this when they were calling Obama a tyrant for an EO so much smaller in scale.

Not to mention that Obama's EO wrt the Dreamers was an act of compassion, not of spite.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't research this significantly but I think it would be fairly easy to find executive orders that contradict the Constitutional interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#Executive_Orders

Why do you think that would violate the second amendment?

 

[dyna]

Why do you think that would violate the second amendment?

I think it is an example where the right to bear arms is being limited as the president feels that certain arms should not be accessible. It does not say in the Constitution which arms you have the right to bear but based on common sense or general issues at the time, there might be reason to restrict its scope. The spirit of the executive order could be seen as a way to reduce the accessibility of certain firearms, taking away the right to bear those arms.

The president should probably have the ability to bring these controversial issues which rightfully should be challenged in the courts as the original interpretation may have a different meaning/must adapt for modern times.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think it is an example where the right to bear arms is being limited as the president feels that certain arms should not be accessible. It does not say in the Constitution which arms you have the right to bear but based on common sense or general issues at the time, there might be reason to restrict its scope. The spirit of the executive order could be seen as a way to reduce the accessibility of certain firearms, taking away the right to bear those arms.

The president should probably have the ability to bring these controversial issues which rightfully should be challenged in the courts as the original interpretation may have a different meaning/must adapt for modern times.

That ability exists just nobody wants to play by the rules which require a 2/3rds majority because that means you have to compromise on something

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it is an example where the right to bear arms is being limited as the president feels that certain arms should not be accessible. It does not say in the Constitution which arms you have the right to bear but based on common sense or general issues at the time, there might be reason to restrict its scope. The spirit of the executive order could be seen as a way to reduce the accessibility of certain firearms, taking away the right to bear those arms.

The president should probably have the ability to bring these controversial issues which rightfully should be challenged in the courts as the original interpretation may have a different meaning/must adapt for modern times.

"Could be seen as" ammosexual raving, too... which has nothing to do with Trump's proposed EO to nullify the 14th amendment.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ah the logical fallacy defense - "appeal to common sense". AKA I got nothing.

Another brave officer of the logical fallacy police.

I've been reading The Atlantic for 20 years, don't come in here throwing cherry picked articles about immigration unless you are going to refer to all the relevant Atlantic articles... which I must point out said article has nothing to do with what we are discussing i.e. liberals benefitting financially from illegal immigration more than other groups and looking the other way.

That’s why I provided two articles, which I doubt you even bothered to read, and even if you did, I doubt you would have the intellectual honesty to concede on any points.

If you’ve been reading those articles as you claim, connecting the dots wouldn’t be so difficult for you.

My original challenge stands, and I stick by my position - your rhetoric is stupid and unproveable.

You have no position.

 

[Engineer]

NVM

 

[Engineer]

The president should probably have the ability to bring these controversial issues which rightfully should be challenged in the courts as the original interpretation may have a different meaning/must adapt for modern times.

If enough people agree with an issue being controversial, take it through the amendment process. The President should not have any ability to issue an EO to change what he or she wants it to mean.

 

[Ajay]

The GOP will not reform immigration law. It's one of their perma-issues, extremely useful to froth up the Faithful every two years.

^This! The republicans have control the entire federal government, and yet, there is NO immigration reform bill. Somehow it’s the Democrats fault

https://splinternews.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-blames-democrats-for-trumps-insa-1830123653