TakeYouToTasker

How was the comment misogynist?

So... American liberals participating in this thread are angry because Brazilians exercising their democratic prerogative elected an anti-socialist in order to ferret out corruption which is literally the only way of life in the government sector; and are stoking fears of a new Pinochet? Do I have this right? These people are ***** stupid.

He's talking to a very specific subset of fans who have one Irish parent and one Mexican parent.

LOL

What do you think the Vegas sports book odds are on Peterman driving 93 yards for a TD?

At this point I'm not even upset. I just feel bad for them.

I'm just joining. I'm ecouraged to find we aren't down by 14.

It's no longer a shift. It's become standard positioning at this point. The "shift" is when teams move back into the original positioning. And no, they shouldn't outlaw it.

Bump.

100% correct. Though given this President's history of returning government to it's proper role, my deeply held suspicion is that his entire purpose it to goad a lower court into issuing an injunction. This puts the ball into the Courts, and will eventually lead to a SCOTUS decision which will either a) suspend the current understanding of birthright citizenship, or b) lead to popular legislation ending the current practice. That new legislation prompted by rejection of "pen and phone" Presidential authority would then eventually make it's way to SCOTUS who will either a) uphold the law, or b) strike it down which will lead directly to a Constitutional Convention to make the necessary amendment(s) to the 14th. Edit: additionally, this whole mess, including an initial injunction, may prod Thomas to opine, as he longs to, about placing proper limits on the jurisdiction of lower courts when issuing injunctions; as well as having a much needed chilling effect on the authority of executive orders.

That's not that argument I'm making. I'm speaking only to the Constitutionality of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, and deeply understand your larger point about USC. 8 USC 1401(a) can be changed via legislation less than Constitutional amendment. I suspect, however, it's direct interpretation would be modified by a Court decision overturning Plyler.

Agreed, though I'm fairly sure Joe isn't advocating for market based solutions here. If he is, he should feel free to correct me, and I'll offer a mea culpa.

Roe v Wade is also "settled law". If you wish to rest on the concept of "settled law", show me the Constitutional provision enshrining abortion as a right. That said, the understanding of law needs to take into account what was intended by the law within it's historical context. The truth is that the Amendment was not intended to function as it now does. Restricted immigration wasn't even a concern, and the concept of illegal immigration didn't exist until years later. It is difficult to argue, in my opinion, that legality should justly spawn from illegality. Wong Kim Ark fails to address the concepts of illegal immigration; and Plyler was wrongly decided, as the Federal government has Leviathan-esque tendancies to expand it's own authority (read "jurisdiction") in ways never intended. What the United States has jurisdiction over are it's borders, and subsequently, in a limited capacity, over those attempting to subvert that jurisdiction.

The carve-outs for Native Americans apply to Native Americans born outside of the borders of sovereign lands. Being born in areas completely under the jurisdiction of the United States and the states which form it does not separate Native Americans from their status. Which is why I mention the arguments made in favor, and against; the understanding of what the Amendment was intended to address, and not address. No, it simply establishes that there are different varieties and levels of "jurisdiction"; and validates the point that the specific type of jurisdiction referenced needs to be accompanied by the original arguments for it's legislation in order to be understood. You haven't established this. The intent, in the context of the history surrounding the Amendment, and the arguments for, and against, was to assure the full citizenship of black Americans as chattel slavery was abolished, and was specific to this event within that context. There may well be an argument to dissuade me of this understanding, but you haven't made it yet; and, as I said above, this at least means that a compelling argument can, and likely will, be made before the Court as a result of the eventualities of current events at our southern border; which I believe will ultimately lead to the Constitutional suspension of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants no matter which way it is decided.

There are different bodies of law with precedence in certain areas. They certainly are not standard US citizens. I'm not sure it's the non-starter you claim it is, though I'm open to persuasive argument. I'll leave it to you to convince me, should you wish to try. You have to give effect to the plain meaning of words according to their meaning in the time they were written, not in the time we reside, and dependent upon the arguments made for their merits to give them context. In the same way you cannot properly ascertain the meaning and intent of the main body of the Constitution without the framework provided by the Federalist and Anti-Federalist, you cannot understand the language of the Amendments without their supporting instructive arguments. The understanding of the term you're breathing into it makes the term meaningless. As Rob has already pointed out, there are not many individuals in the world who don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States in some manner or another. Again, this runs counter to the supporting arguments of the Amendment, and it's intent. All of this said, my purpose here is simply that a compelling Origionalist argument can be made against granting birthright citizenship to the citizens of illegal aliens; and that I am thrilled that it appears the issue is going to thrust before the Court as a result of this most recent migrant caravan, as a lower court is almost certain to involve itself. Either way, successful argued or not, it will ultimately lead to a suspension of birthright citizenship, as the issue is one that is popular enough to lead to a Constitutional Convention, followed by an Amendment eliminating the practice.

This completely ignores the ways the Amendment was understood, and carve-outs to whom it did not apply (as Rob mentioned), at the time it was written. So, no. It isn't.

We can't, Joe. Nor should we. Why is fascism so damn appealing to you? What gives you the right to use the force of government to restrict the political rights of others?

No, they don't. The Origionalist interpretation of the 2nd reads into the Amendment the Founder's intent, which was to be able to overthrow their own government should it become necessary. The notion that it was intended to restrict private ownership of weapons to primitive muskets is a red herring which intends to introduce a false history. The 14th was a Reconstruction Amendment adopted in order to bring a clean legal halt to the practice of slavery within the United States.

I think we're long past due, as a nation, to have a serious legal discussion of the 14th, and I think this prompts it. I think you're aware that the 14th wasn't intended to be used the way it is in your argument, and an Origionalist interpretation would require reading the purpose of the Amendment into the understanding of the text. That said, if necessary, I don't think it would be an insurmountable hurdle to amend the Document to disallow birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. (I'm of the opinion that it should be done away with completely for everyone.)

It's probably enough to initiate a human trafficking investigation.

Oh my...

I am, as a rule, never surprised the people's ignorance. I'm usually surprised by people who aren't absurdly ignorant. My commentary has more to do with the "all individuals within the group take on all the worst characteristics of it's worst members" mantra.

The breakdown of political affiliation in Judaism in America falls largely along the lines of religious vs. secularism. Most secular Jews are liberal leaning, while nearly all Jews who are conservative come from the religious community. Why would everyone think Jews all think the same thing? Is this some variation of the Jew-Bee dance?

Which is why I addressed my post directly to you, Joe. Why would you, if you were a Jew, feel humiliated by the actions of this person?