The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Wow, is there anything Donald Trump isn’t to blame for (besides anything good that happens, of course)? You probably weren’t aware of this, but apparently he’s responsible for the Nigerian Army opening fire on protesters:

 

The Nigerian army is using a video of Trump’s speech yesterday - where he said US troops should “consider it a rifle” if migrants throw rocks - to justify its shooting 45 unarmed protesters https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewchampion/trump-mexico-migrant-caravan-rocks-firearms-nigeria …

 

The Nigerian army has used President Trump’s remarks from the White House yesterday to justify shooting rock-throwing protesters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/africa/nigeria-trump-rocks.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur …

 

 

 

 

So, if we’re understanding this correctly, the Nigerian Army shooting rock-wielding protesters this past Monday is Donald Trump’s fault because of a speech he gave … yesterday.

 

Yes that’s Trumps fault. Run with this.

 

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/11/02/run-with-this-youll-never-guess-what-media-are-blaming-donald-trump-for-now-because-its-beyond-ridiculous/

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

1.) I should clarify: Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US, even after the 14th Amendment (until the Indian Citizenship Act) because they have always been considered sovereign (i.e. 'Indians not taxed' being referenced in the original draft of the Constitution, excluding them from a State's population for representation purposes.) Because they were sovereign nations, they were not 'under the jurisdiction' of the US. Either way, since that special status applied only to them, it's a non-starter.

 

2.) The meaning of the word 'jurisdiction' hasn't really changed since the 19th century (or the 14th century, for that matter).

 

3.) We're not talking about some long-arm statute or tangential relationship to the US financial sector. If you are physically in a county, or state, you are subject to that country's (or state's) laws. That country/state has legal power over you. That's what jurisdiction means. The lack of comprehension of that concept does not render the term meaningless.

 

4.) The intent was to make everyone born in the US, other than the families of diplomats and "Indians not taxed",  specifically freed black slaves, citizens of the US. The intent was to give birthright citizenship. The fact that it has turned into a cottage industry, due to an unforeseen consequence, does not invalidate its intent.

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

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.

When scholars like Richard Posner disagree with you it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it's a good indication that the issue may be a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

When scholars like Richard Posner disagree with you it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it's a good indication that the issue may be a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

 

Posner's a smart guy. Doesn't make him right.

[Rob's House]

8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Posner's a smart guy. Doesn't make him right.

Dude, I just said that.

15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

1.) I should clarify: Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US, even after the 14th Amendment (until the Indian Citizenship Act) because they have always been considered sovereign (i.e. 'Indians not taxed' being referenced in the original draft of the Constitution, excluding them from a State's population for representation purposes.) Because they were sovereign nations, they were not 'under the jurisdiction' of the US. Either way, since that special status applied only to them, it's a non-starter.

 

2.) The meaning of the word 'jurisdiction' hasn't really changed since the 19th century (or the 14th century, for that matter).

 

3.) We're not talking about some long-arm statute or tangential relationship to the US financial sector. If you are physically in a county, or state, you are subject to that country's (or state's) laws. That country/state has legal power over you. That's what jurisdiction means. The lack of comprehension of that concept does not render the term meaningless.

 

4.) The intent was to make everyone born in the US, other than the families of diplomats and "Indians not taxed",  specifically freed black slaves, citizens of the US. The intent was to give birthright citizenship. The fact that it has turned into a cottage industry, due to an unforeseen consequence, does not invalidate its intent.

2. There is enough ambiguity, given the context, to justify looking to the legislative history.

 

4. The legislative history strongly suggests that the intent was not to give birthright citizenship to foreigners who happened to give birth while in the US. See Rob's House, § 179-180

[TakeYouToTasker]

31 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

1.) I should clarify: Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US, even after the 14th Amendment (until the Indian Citizenship Act) because they have always been considered sovereign (i.e. 'Indians not taxed' being referenced in the original draft of the Constitution, excluding them from a State's population for representation purposes.) Because they were sovereign nations, they were not 'under the jurisdiction' of the US. Either way, since that special status applied only to them, it's a non-starter.

 

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. 

 

Quote

2.) The meaning of the word 'jurisdiction' hasn't really changed since the 19th century (or the 14th century, for that matter).

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.

 

Quote

3.) We're not talking about some long-arm statute or tangential relationship to the US financial sector. If you are physically in a county, or state, you are subject to that country's (or state's) laws. That country/state has legal power over you. That's what jurisdiction means. The lack of comprehension of that concept does not render the term meaningless.

 

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.

 

Quote

4.) The intent was to make everyone born in the US, other than the families of diplomats and "Indians not taxed",  specifically freed black slaves, citizens of the US. The intent

was to give birthright citizenship. The fact that it has turned into a cottage industry, due to an unforeseen consequence, does not invalidate its intent.

 

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.

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[3rdnlng]

Watching Obama's rally in Florida right now. He's taking lying to a new level along with a mild version of Hillary's black dialect.

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Watching Obama's rally in Florida right now. He's taking lying to a new level along with a mild version of Hillary's black dialect.

 

He got heckled a bunch too. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He got heckled a bunch too. 

Then Chris Wallace touts his great skill at communication. At times he certainly can sound pretty smooth but that today he was more circus barker than Trump ever has been.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

2. There is enough ambiguity, given the context, to justify looking to the legislative history.

 

4. The legislative history strongly suggests that the intent was not to give birthright citizenship to foreigners who happened to give birth while in the US. See Rob's House, § 179-180

 

Plain meaning is to be given to the words. The word in question, jurisdiction, has not changed meaning in 700 years. Legislative history is persuasive when there's ambiguity, but not dispositive. There is no ambiguity with the phrasing of the 14th Amendment. The Legislature is deemed to mean what they write/pass.

 

This isn't even an arguable concept. It's been well-settled law for centuries.

 

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

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.

 

The plain language of the Amendment says you're wrong. Please point to the text of the Amendment where it says anything resembling that it applies only to former slaves, and for this one time only.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But please, continue to tell me about how Constitutional Law and construction works.

 

?

[TakeYouToTasker]

18 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

The plain language of the Amendment says you're wrong. Please point to the text of the Amendment where it says anything resembling that it applies only to former slaves, and for this one time only.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But please, continue to tell me about how Constitutional Law and construction works.

 

?

 

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.

 

 

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

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.

 

As I said, an unintended consequence. Doesn't invalidate the fact that the Amendment is doing exactly what they wrote it to do.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

 

 

This is what I was getting at.  TYTT, please argue for me that 8 USC 1401 only applies in historical context.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

This is what I was getting at.  TYTT, please argue for me that 8 USC 1401 only applies in historical context.

 

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.

Edited November 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That's not that argument I'm making.  I'm speaking only to the Constitutionality, 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.

 

Neither, however, can be changed from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone.  

 

At least, not by a Republican...

[TakeYouToTasker]

16 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Neither, however, can be changed from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone.  

 

At least, not by a Republican...

 

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.

Edited November 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

Notice how President Trump got the libs to defend the sanctity of the constitution.

[Deranged Rhino]

So now as a last second gasp, CNN - through Cohen - is saying Trump is a racist. Again. 

 

Problem is...

 

 

[IDBillzFan]