The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Gun grabbers apply the same argument to #2A

 

That said, I think we are long overdue for a Constitutional Convention

 

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.

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I don't think it does. I'm not familiar with the legislative history, but the relevant language mirrors that of the 14th amendment. It comes down to what is meant by jurisdiction. It appears to mean complete jurisdiction, like not having allegiance to any foreign country.

 

The alternative interpretation violates canons of statutory interpretation. It reads a clause out of existence and renders an absurd outcome.

 

However, the 14th was clearly a post-war act to establish the citizenship of freed slaves, and as such it can be argued that the original intent did not include establishing citizenship going forward.

 

No such argument can be made about 8 USC 1401.  Which is my point: the statutory argument is stronger than the Constitutional argument in this case, so why even invite the argument by citing the 14th, given Trump can't override either one?

[boyst]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

However, the 14th was clearly a post-war act to establish the citizenship of freed slaves, and as such it can be argued that the original intent did not include establishing citizenship going forward.

 

No such argument can be made about 8 USC 1401.  Which is my point: the statutory argument is stronger than the Constitutional argument in this case, so why even invite the argument by citing the 14th, given Trump can't override either one?

Honestly, don't you really want him to for the outage alone?  An EO by day glow orange man to end it would be immediately stayed and suspended by the 9th via Hawaii and California. Then moved very slowly for effect through appeals and hearings to come out around August of 2019 and have SCOTUS draw some lines on what Appellate courts can and can't do but overall have to shoot down this stupid stunt?

 

And I'm against automatically giving even babies born to US parents citizenship. 

[Joe Miner]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

However, the 14th was clearly a post-war act to establish the citizenship of freed slaves, and as such it can be argued that the original intent did not include establishing citizenship going forward.

 

No such argument can be made about 8 USC 1401.  Which is my point: the statutory argument is stronger than the Constitutional argument in this case, so why even invite the argument by citing the 14th, given Trump can't override either one?

 

Because whenever Trump says something stupid, the Democrats respond with, "Hold my beer."

[Rob's House]

30 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

However, the 14th was clearly a post-war act to establish the citizenship of freed slaves, and as such it can be argued that the original intent did not include establishing citizenship going forward.

 

No such argument can be made about 8 USC 1401.  Which is my point: the statutory argument is stronger than the Constitutional argument in this case, so why even invite the argument by citing the 14th, given Trump can't override either one?

I was speaking to the assertion that what President Trump proposed would violate the constitution, but the rationale you stated isn't the basis of my argument. It is however instructive.

 

The crux of the issue comes down to the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That's not as simple as determining if someone can be prosecuted. I'll delve deeper on this later.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I was speaking to the assertion that what President Trump proposed would violate the constitution, but the rationale you stated isn't the basis of my argument. It is however instructive.

 

The crux of the issue comes down to the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That's not as simple as determining if someone can be prosecuted. I'll delve deeper on this later.

 

 

 

I'm aware of that argument, too.  And I generally dismiss it with the pithy observation that if you can legislate their residency and deportation, they are in fact subject to your jurisdiction.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Wellllllllllllllll all I know is people are talking about this now (birthright citizenship). Before Trump mentioned it, it was long buried (like Ronnie-Reagan-days buried).

He then said Congress was the better way to go (although if DACA is an EO that the courts supported...)

And people are still talking about illegals, the caravan, anchor babies, and whether the United States has birthright citizenship for children born to women in this country illegally.  Right before an election.

Yeah, sure, that Trump really is a dummy who has no idea what he is saying.  

 

[unbillievable]

So the three biggest issues on everyone's mind going into the election are Immigration, Gun rights, and #Metoo, which all skew heavily in favor of Conservatives.

 

Are we sure these incidents are being orchestrated by Liberals?

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, unbillievable said:

Are we sure these incidents are being orchestrated by Liberals?

 

Yes. They're that stupid.

[3rdnlng]

52 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm aware of that argument, too.  And I generally dismiss it with the pithy observation that if you can legislate their residency and deportation, they are in fact subject to your jurisdiction.

Let me see if I have this right. A trespasser comes on my property and since it is my right to let them stay or remove them, they are subject to my jurisdiction. The fact that they are under my jurisdiction gives them the right to choose whether they stay on my property? Let's put it another way; since I have the right to decide their destiny they get to tell me to go to hell and do what they want?

 

Precedent has been that anyone born here (with certain exclusions) is automatically a citizen. That policy needs to be changed by a law passed by congress which will certainly be challenged and eventually work its way to the SCOTUS. We will then know if we need to amend the Constitution or not.

 

There is a large difference between North American and Central/South American countries. We here in NA were populated by Europeans and adopted a form of English law. We (the U.S) are the most successful country the world has ever known. That's because we are governed by our laws, not by our whims. The people coming from the south by-and-large do not respect our laws. They come from cultures that don't much giveashit about laws and are corrupt. We need to be selective who we let into this country or we will eventually fall prey to the values of the people south of us. Countries are/were formed by a commonality that allowed like groups to live with each other. Assimilation is of paramount importance as it pertains to people wanting to live here. I don't see a great desire to become Americans and celebrate the Fourth Of July but I do see people vowing to break through our borders while hoisting the Honduran flag or committed to celebrating Cinco de Mayo instead. I for one don't want our country to adopt the ways of the corrupt and impoverished. The countries to the south of us have no lack of resources that would keep them in an impoverished state. What they lack is the culture that for generations has ingrained in them the  respect for the law. We need the people seeking to live in our country to be vetted. We need them to want be an American. It's as simple as that.

[Koko78]

Bottom line is that if you're on US soil, you're subject to US jurisdiction.

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm aware of that argument, too.  And I generally dismiss it with the pithy observation that if you can legislate their residency and deportation, they are in fact subject to your jurisdiction.

That interpretation renders the jurisdiction clause meaningless. There is a canon of textual integrity that urges us to avoid interpreting a provision in a way that would render other provisions of the text superfluous or unnecessary. That should at the very least raise enough ambiguity to look to the intent behind the chosen word usage.

 

It's not clear that the word "jurisdiction" was meant in the same context as you're using it here. The legislative history suggests it meant complete and full jurisdiction, as opposed to limited jurisdiction. Literally anyone anywhere in the world can be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in one form or another.

 

As you mentioned, the purpose was to overrule Dred Scott and prevent states from denying citizenship to black Americans who had no allegiance to any foreign nations.

 

Birthright citizenship did not apply to untaxed American Indians at the time, although they were still subject to criminal prosecution.

 

Lyman Trumbell (Senator involved in passing it) said it referred to "complete" jurisdiction, which he defined as "not owing allegiance to anyone else." That would seem to exclude children who are born citizens of a foreign nation due to their parents' citizenship. It's also worth noting that non-citizens can't be prosecuted for treason against the U.S. The issue is a lot more complicated than determining if someone can be prosecuted or deported.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Bottom line is that if you're on US soil, you're subject to US jurisdiction.

It's not that simple.

[Koko78]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

It's not that simple.

 

Yeah, it actually is.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, it actually is.

 

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Rob's House]

Here is the specific discussion by the author and sponsor of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) from the Congressional Record: 

 

"Mr. HOWARD. 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 so 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." 

[Koko78]

29 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

1.) Indian nations have been considered sovereign (not to mention US citizens), so that's a non-starter.

 

2.) You have to give effect to the plain meaning of words. That's basic jurisprudence. If the legislature phrased something a certain way, they're intending it to be that way.

 

3.) You cannot go to a neighboring state, commit a crime, then claim they have no jurisdiction over you because you're not a resident. It don't work that way.

 

4.) If you're in a foreign country, you ARE subject to their laws. They have jurisdiction (as in official power) over you.

 

This is not a complicated legal concept.

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

That interpretation renders the jurisdiction clause meaningless. There is a canon of textual integrity that urges us to avoid interpreting a provision in a way that would render other provisions of the text superfluous or unnecessary. That should at the very least raise enough ambiguity to look to the intent behind the chosen word usage.

 

It's not clear that the word "jurisdiction" was meant in the same context as you're using it here. The legislative history suggests it meant complete and full jurisdiction, as opposed to limited jurisdiction. Literally anyone anywhere in the world can be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in one form or another.

 

As you mentioned, the purpose was to overrule Dred Scott and prevent states from denying citizenship to black Americans who had no allegiance to any foreign nations.

 

Birthright citizenship did not apply to untaxed American Indians at the time, although they were still subject to criminal prosecution.

 

Lyman Trumbell (Senator involved in passing it) said it referred to "complete" jurisdiction, which he defined as "not owing allegiance to anyone else." That would seem to exclude children who are born citizens of a foreign nation due to their parents' citizenship. It's also worth noting that non-citizens can't be prosecuted for treason against the U.S. The issue is a lot more complicated than determining if someone can be prosecuted or deported.

 

 

I did say it was a pithy observation.  Tongue-in-cheek, and not entirely serious.  

 

But even so, you're generalizing a specific case, and in doing so making a rather fallacious argument that relies on a very broad definition of "jurisdiction" (as evidenced by "literally anyone anywhere in the world...")  "Jurisdiction" may be more than "the ability to prosecute and deport," but it is certainly less than "subject to the influence of."  

 

And as such, it is tied rather closely to "sovereignty": the 14th, more than overturning Dred Scott, was very much a statement of the primacy of national sovereignty over state sovereignty in determining citizenship.  The denial of birthright citizenship to Native Americans was likewise based on sovereignty: as evidenced by the numerous treaties between the US and Native American nations, they were considered to have a measure of limited sovereignty (still are, in fact) that limited US jurisdiction over them.  

 

Neither of those cases would necessarily apply here: when someone is born in the US, there is no question of dual- or multiple-sovereignty.  There is no question that a person born in the US, remaining in residence in the US, is subject to US jurisdiction (note that my phrasing specifically excludes diplomats and travelers - but again, the issue of sovereignty in those cases is clear: they are subject to the sovereignty of another foreign power, hence not under the complete jurisdiction of the US). 

 

And to argue it's determined by "allegiance" is fallacious in and of itself.  My declaring allegiance to Sierra Leone does not remove me from US jurisdiction in any way - jurisdiction is not something the individual chooses for themselves, because, again, issues of sovereignty (i.e. Sierra Leone would have to grant some recognition of my hypothetical statement of allegiance).   To argue that "jurisdiction" is based on anything as individual as "allegiance" is to justify "sovereign citizens" in all their craziness.  It's also to argue, in the case of the children of illegal immigrants, a concept of "birthright allegiance" that somehow supersedes any concept of sovereignty or "birthright citizenship."  

 

TL;DR: bottom line, it's inaccurate, when considering something like citizenship that is explicitly granted by the state, to discuss "jurisdiction" in terms of individual "allegiance," Trumbell notwithstanding, instead of sovereignty.  And as the children of illegal immigrants have no question of competing sovereign interests, there should be no question about them being under US jurisdiction.

[TakeYouToTasker]

38 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

1.) Indian nations have been considered sovereign (not to mention US citizens), so that's a non-starter.

 

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.

 

Quote

2.) You have to give effect to the plain meaning of words. That's basic jurisprudence. If the legislature phrased something a certain way, they're intending it to be that way.

 

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.

 

Quote

3.) You cannot go to a neighboring state, commit a crime, then claim they have no jurisdiction over you because you're not a resident. It don't work that way.

 

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. 

 

Quote

4.) If you're in a foreign country, you ARE subject to their laws. They have jurisdiction (as in official power) over you.

 

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.

Edited November 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

26 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I did say it was a pithy observation.  Tongue-in-cheek, and not entirely serious.  

 

But even so, you're generalizing a specific case, and in doing so making a rather fallacious argument that relies on a very broad definition of "jurisdiction" (as evidenced by "literally anyone anywhere in the world...")  "Jurisdiction" may be more than "the ability to prosecute and deport," but it is certainly less than "subject to the influence of."  

 

And as such, it is tied rather closely to "sovereignty": the 14th, more than overturning Dred Scott, was very much a statement of the primacy of national sovereignty over state sovereignty in determining citizenship.  The denial of birthright citizenship to Native Americans was likewise based on sovereignty: as evidenced by the numerous treaties between the US and Native American nations, they were considered to have a measure of limited sovereignty (still are, in fact) that limited US jurisdiction over them.  

 

Neither of those cases would necessarily apply here: when someone is born in the US, there is no question of dual- or multiple-sovereignty.  There is no question that a person born in the US, remaining in residence in the US, is subject to US jurisdiction (note that my phrasing specifically excludes diplomats and travelers - but again, the issue of sovereignty in those cases is clear: they are subject to the sovereignty of another foreign power, hence not under the complete jurisdiction of the US). 

 

And to argue it's determined by "allegiance" is fallacious in and of itself.  My declaring allegiance to Sierra Leone does not remove me from US jurisdiction in any way - jurisdiction is not something the individual chooses for themselves, because, again, issues of sovereignty (i.e. Sierra Leone would have to grant some recognition of my hypothetical statement of allegiance).   To argue that "jurisdiction" is based on anything as individual as "allegiance" is to justify "sovereign citizens" in all their craziness.  It's also to argue, in the case of the children of illegal immigrants, a concept of "birthright allegiance" that somehow supersedes any concept of sovereignty or "birthright citizenship."  

 

TL;DR: bottom line, it's inaccurate, when considering something like citizenship that is explicitly granted by the state, to discuss "jurisdiction" in terms of individual "allegiance," Trumbell notwithstanding, instead of sovereignty.  And as the children of illegal immigrants have no question of competing sovereign interests, there should be no question about them being under US jurisdiction.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that my interpretation is definitely the correct one. Legal scholars who are far more learned than I are split on the issue. But I think the argument for my position is stronger than the one against it.

 

Allegiance, in this context, doesn't refer to an allegiance you voluntarily pledge. It meant something analogous to citizen of another entity. For example, if Elizabeth Warren's great grandmother wandered off the reservation and had a baby, the child would be a citizen of (have allegiance to) the tribe. If a pregnant Canadian was visiting Niagara Falls and came over to the American side and gave birth, the child would be a citizen of (have allegiance to) Canada.

 

Former slaves were not citizens of any other entity, thus they had no allegiance to anyone else.