JD Vance takes Europe to the woodshed

[Del.]

All that means is that they are under the legal authority of a particular governing body. In this case, the US (or State) government?

All of this would be moot if Biden had secured the border. Trump is trying to fix it. Weeks before Biden took office there were groups of thousands heading this way and he just waived them in. That was treasonous. He's totally the blame along with democrats. Border looks like a ghost town after 3 weeks of Trump.

[Del.]

Check out "puckle gun".

They knew PLENTY about what was possible.

Yep. During Civil War tremendous progress was made in weapons.

[Incogneeto]

All of this would be moot if Biden had secured the border. Trump is trying to fix it. Weeks before Biden took office there were groups of thousands heading this way and he just waived them in. That was treasonous. He's totally the blame along with democrats. Border looks like a ghost town after 3 weeks of Trump.

"Common Sense"

[CNCAppsJames]

All that means is that they are under the legal authority of a particular governing body. In this case, the US (or State) government?

That is the implication. Nation 1st, State 2nd. Nation is responsible for citizenship rights.. so far. "Sanctuary" this or that are attempted usurp that right of the Federal Government who is here legally and who is here illegally.

I think the whole "Sanctuary" thing is going toncome to anhead in the next few years as the Fed could (and may) withold Federal funds from states that do not adhere to Federal Immigration law.

Trump = No Federal money will go to Sanctuary... 👎
Congress = No Federal money will go to sanctuary... 👍

By Constitution Congress is in charge or appropriation.

Trump can say by EO do this or that, but if Congress doesn't fund it, then it does onnte vine.

[Incogneeto]

That is the implication. Nation 1st, State 2nd. Nation is responsible for citizenship rights.. so far. "Sanctuary" this or that are attempted usurp that right of the Federal Government who is here legally and who is here illegally.

I think the whole "Sanctuary" thing is going toncome to anhead in the next few years as the Fed could (and may) withold Federal funds from states that do not adhere to Federal Immigration law.

Trump = No Federal money will go to Sanctuary... 👎
Congress = No Federal money will go to sanctuary... 👍

By Constitution Congress is in charge or appropriation.

Trump can say by EO do this or that, but if Congress doesn't fund it, then it does onnte vine.

What if it is not in the Pacific NorthWest???

What if I interpret it different??

What if I .........

[neurosis]

All of this would be moot if Biden had secured the border. Trump is trying to fix it. Weeks before Biden took office there were groups of thousands heading this way and he just waived them in. That was treasonous. He's totally the blame along with democrats. Border looks like a ghost town after 3 weeks of Trump.

In the context of this conversation, that's a straw man. Nobody is arguing that.

The argument is, can a president unilaterally abolish a constitutional amendment. Whether we agree with it or not.

Now we're trying to dance around the interpretation of an amendment (sound familiar?) to suit our personal opinions.

[Del.]

In the context of this conversation, that's a straw man. Nobody is arguing that.

The argument is, can a president unilaterally abolish a constitutional amendment. Whether we agree with it or not.

Now we're trying to dance around the interpretation of an amendment (sound familiar?) to suit our personal opinions.

No he can't on his own but he can challenge it through the courts.

[Incogneeto]

No he can't on his own but he can challenge it through the courts.

DUHH!!!

[neurosis]

I think the whole "Sanctuary" thing is going toncome to anhead in the next few years as the Fed could (and may) withold Federal funds from states that do not adhere to Federal Immigration law.

I don't agree with sanctuary Cities or States either.

For what that's worth.

[neurosis]

No he can't on his own but he can challenge it through the courts.

And they are. 

The SCOTUS has surprised me more than once. We'll see how this plays out I guess.

[CNCAppsJames]

The argument is, can a president unilaterally abolish a constitutional amendment. Whether we agree with it or not.

NOBODY is arguing that.

What is being argued is if someone is here illegally and they produce offspring here, while they are here illegally, is that offspring automatically granted citizenship.

Until "subject the the jurisdiction thereof" is adjudicated, that is open for debate.

[Del.]

And they are. 

The SCOTUS has surprised me more than once. We'll see how this plays out I guess.

I just don't think they will change it. That sets a terrible precedent that I don't think they want to be remembered for.

[CNCAppsJames]

Now we're trying to dance around the interpretation of an amendment (sound familiar?) to suit our personal opinions.

"Shall not be infringed". Yeah, now that you mention it, we do need help interpreting that.


"Militia"... I'll give you that one because language has changed, so words do have different meanings now, which Is why I have a PDF of a 1st Edition Websters Dictionary. When I have a question about what a word in the Constitution means, I get hold of a period Dictionary. It's the only way AFAI am concerned to get the correct context.

[neurosis]

Until "subject the the jurisdiction thereof" is adjudicated, that is open for debate.

When I look this debate up it takes me straight to the Heritage Foundation. Is that a strange coincidence? 

It looks like this has been played out in the past and both parties have considered legislation to prevent "birthright citizenship" or at least limit it, but neither have thought that it would make it past the courts due to set precedence.

Like I said earlier.. this SCOTUS has surprised me before.  lol.  I don't have a lot of faith in it.

[Incogneeto]

I don't have a lot of faith in it.

You have made it clear you have no faith. In God or any other.