The House on Thursday voted to table a resolution to impeach President Trump after Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on the matter, scuttling the snap impeachment push with the help of Democratic leaders voting “present” rather than aiding Green with the effort. A Republican motion to table the matter easily succeeded 237-140, with the help of 47 Democrats voting present and 23 voting in favor of tabling.
1A is unclear on what 'separation of church of state' means. those words are not in the amendment and we could be going completely astray from what the writers of the constitution meant. Perhaps they favored persecution of jews and muslims, and only cared that no 'Church of the United States' be founded.
I mostly agree with your posts, but I think the language of the birthright amendment is crystal clear: "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." A good argument can be made that this section of the amendment has outlived its purpose, but I don't see how it can be changed other than by another amendment--not judicial fiat. (Although, granted, who knows with this court.)
the argument is what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.
it could designate a carveout that children of diplomats born here are not citizens. And that children of invading armies or not born US citizens.
or
it could also be a carve out for tourists in the US legally or illegally. A tourist is not a US citizen and doesn't intend to stay, their loyalties are elsewhere, so why should their baby be born a US citizen? Does not that wording suggest if your parents owe loyalty to another nation, you aren't automatically a citizen? Seems like they might.
The House on Thursday voted to table a resolution to impeach President Trump after Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on the matter, scuttling the snap impeachment push with the help of Democratic leaders voting “present” rather than aiding Green with the effort. A Republican motion to table the matter easily succeeded 237-140, with the help of 47 Democrats voting present and 23 voting in favor of tabling.
oh trump will be impeached. There is very little doubt he's heading for trial in the senate again. he's done multiple impeachable acts.
The House on Thursday voted to table a resolution to impeach President Trump after Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on the matter, scuttling the snap impeachment push with the help of Democratic leaders voting “present” rather than aiding Green with the effort. A Republican motion to table the matter easily succeeded 237-140, with the help of 47 Democrats voting present and 23 voting in favor of tabling.
oh trump will be impeached. There is very little doubt he's heading for trial in the senate again. he's done multiple impeachable acts.
He was acquitted - i.e., found non guilty twice by a partisan House of hack Dems. He will never be impeached again.
President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state. Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.
Elections have consequences - Obama
"the law is the law" - Everyone.
The exec branch can't simply tell congress 'i know you passed a law mandating spending in Indiana, but I'm not going to do it because I am Piggie.'
STOCK MARKET JUST HIT AN ALL-TIME HIGH!!! When will the Fake Polls show that I am doing a great job on the Economy, and much more??? Thank you!
For the first 6 months of Trump's presidency the Libs here only wanted to talk about the stock market. Now, for the last few months they have never mentioned once the market. They have NOTHING to go on. Even the Epstein files crap has fizzled out. They are crying that they have nothing to complain about.
The President is claiming that the issue of affordability is a hoax. You can add it the list of
National debt Health care Epstein The crisis in America’s farmland Mass layoffs across the country Haphazard and politically motivated prosecutions Quid pro quo pardons Incitement of war with Venezuela Destruction of relationships with Canada and Denmark Threatening to harm states that don’t gerrymander to sufficiently disenfranchise voters
For the first 6 months of Trump's presidency the Libs here only wanted to talk about the stock market. Now, for the last few months they have never mentioned once the market. They have NOTHING to go on. Even the Epstein files crap has fizzled out. They are crying that they have nothing to complain about.
The President is claiming that the issue of affordability is a hoax. You can add it the list of
National debt Health care Epstein The crisis in America’s farmland Mass layoffs across the country Haphazard and politically motivated prosecutions Quid pro quo pardons Incitement of war with Venezuela Destruction of relationships with Canada and Denmark Threatening to harm states that don’t gerrymander to sufficiently disenfranchise voters
among subjects that Democrats have to talk about.
You clowns were clamoring for months about the release of the Epstein files. Dude - what happened with that? That fell on the wayside like every other crap thing you thrown on the wall?
I mostly agree with your posts, but I think the language of the birthright amendment is crystal clear: "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." A good argument can be made that this section of the amendment has outlived its purpose, but I don't see how it can be changed other than by another amendment--not judicial fiat. (Although, granted, who knows with this court.)
the argument is what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.
it could designate a carveout that children of diplomats born here are not citizens. And that children of invading armies or not born US citizens.
or
it could also be a carve out for tourists in the US legally or illegally. A tourist is not a US citizen and doesn't intend to stay, their loyalties are elsewhere, so why should their baby be born a US citizen? Does not that wording suggest if your parents owe loyalty to another nation, you aren't automatically a citizen? Seems like they might.
If a tourist or illegal immigrant isn’t subject to our laws, then they’re immune from prosecution. The sensible and straightforward path to ending birthright citizenship is amending the Constitution. This country passed an amendment to ban beer and then passed another one to rescind that ban. That’s the process.
The senators who debated the 14th Amendment knew that it would apply to the children of Chinese immigrants in California. This wasn’t unknown to them.
The President is claiming that the issue of affordability is a hoax. You can add it the list of
National debt Health care Epstein The crisis in America’s farmland Mass layoffs across the country Haphazard and politically motivated prosecutions Quid pro quo pardons Incitement of war with Venezuela Destruction of relationships with Canada and Denmark Threatening to harm states that don’t gerrymander to sufficiently disenfranchise voters
among subjects that Democrats have to talk about.
You clowns were clamoring for months about the release of the Epstein files. Dude - what happened with that? That fell on the wayside like every other crap thing you thrown on the wall?
How many months have the MAGAs been clamoring about the Epstein files?
The President is claiming that the issue of affordability is a hoax. You can add it the list of
National debt Health care Epstein The crisis in America’s farmland Mass layoffs across the country Haphazard and politically motivated prosecutions Quid pro quo pardons Incitement of war with Venezuela Destruction of relationships with Canada and Denmark Threatening to harm states that don’t gerrymander to sufficiently disenfranchise voters
among subjects that Democrats have to talk about.
You clowns were clamoring for months about the release of the Epstein files. Dude - what happened with that? That fell on the wayside like every other crap thing you thrown on the wall?
I hope to see everyone who was complicit with Epstein go to court and then to prison.
You clowns were clamoring for months about the release of the Epstein files. Dude - what happened with that? That fell on the wayside like every other crap thing you thrown on the wall?
I hope to see everyone who was complicit with Epstein go to court and then to prison.
the argument is what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.
it could designate a carveout that children of diplomats born here are not citizens. And that children of invading armies or not born US citizens.
or
it could also be a carve out for tourists in the US legally or illegally. A tourist is not a US citizen and doesn't intend to stay, their loyalties are elsewhere, so why should their baby be born a US citizen? Does not that wording suggest if your parents owe loyalty to another nation, you aren't automatically a citizen? Seems like they might.
If a tourist or illegal immigrant isn’t subject to our laws, then they’re immune from prosecution. The sensible and straightforward path to ending birthright citizenship is amending the Constitution. This country passed an amendment to ban beer and then passed another one to rescind that ban. That’s the process.
The senators who debated the 14th Amendment knew that it would apply to the children of Chinese immigrants in California. This wasn’t unknown to them.
well then should children of diplomats and invading armies also be granted birthright citizenship?
once you start making exceptions, it does open the field.
But anyway, my main point is that legal language is often very poorly written and ambiguous. Which is why we need courts to sort it out for us and at least have someone make a decision.
If a tourist or illegal immigrant isn’t subject to our laws, then they’re immune from prosecution. The sensible and straightforward path to ending birthright citizenship is amending the Constitution. This country passed an amendment to ban beer and then passed another one to rescind that ban. That’s the process.
The senators who debated the 14th Amendment knew that it would apply to the children of Chinese immigrants in California. This wasn’t unknown to them.
well then should children of diplomats and invading armies also be granted birthright citizenship?
once you start making exceptions, it does open the field.
But anyway, my main point is that legal language is often very poorly written and ambiguous. Which is why we need courts to sort it out for us and at least have someone make a decision.
Neither the children of diplomats nor any child born in the US to a theoretical pregnant invading soldier are citizens because they’re clearly not subject to our laws. Diplomats enjoy immunity (which can be revoked) and any invading military force wouldn’t face prosecution in a common criminal court.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.