quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
its a bloody farce....
NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt...
just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic.
The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier.
DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed.

NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later.

"HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship ? "WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country."

Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

HERE

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R.140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would end the practice by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S.301.

HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
its a bloody farce....
NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt...
just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic.
The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier.
DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either.

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
its a bloody farce....
NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt...
just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic.
The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier.
DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either.

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means?

Actually it doesn't. It can rule over the interpretation of previous examinations of law and the Constitution. They are not allowed to reinterpret those laws. Nor are the lower courts allowed to do this. Its often interpreted by 'Low Information Voters' as 'activist judges'. The courts are held to the law by both the writing of the law and the spirit to which it was written. Ever notice we have so many issues with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments but not many problems with the last eight on the books?

We as a nation got better at defining amendments into reality. We recognize in part, that technology has placed a more greater role in law (the speed of technological changes) than it took place in the late 18th century. However, while technology can change how laws are handled or used; the judges of the nation are beheld to the law itself.

The concept of the Supreme Court was to be a bunch of individuals that served for a dozen to sixteen years on the federal bench before retiring or dying. Thanks to medical technology and usage, the age life of senior citizens is much greater in 2015 than in the late 18th century. As such we have individuals on the bench whom were put in place during the George Herbert Walker Bush administration; long before the youngest generation graduating from high school were born! Much of America has changed in that time period. Good and bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
its a bloody farce....
NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt...
just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic.
The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier.
DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either.

Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

.....and yet some now think that legislation is the answer. It isn't and never was. It's like passing a law to end the effects of the 'Citizens' ruling. They can't. The 14th amend. it quite specific on birthright citizenship.
My point in the last two posts is that the repubs have gone almost 180 degrees on their policies (even where it concerns EO's) and obviously only since Obama, not before. Even the medical insurance mandate as in the ACA was first brought up by the repubs in 92-93 but oh now under Obama, it must be rescinded.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Don't worry, in about 12 months or so, we'll have 16 dead carcasses rotting on the road, and the victor will miraculously flip-flop into a moderate centrist. This will PISS OFF THE BASE and confuse the otherwise uneducated electorate.

What the Republicans really need is some kind of primary reform to marginalize the highly motivated, irrational, crazies. All they'd have to do is open up their primaries to all voters in every district.

As is, these candidates are stuck with all the "special education" voters, and the pandering here necessary to win is beyond ugly.

quote:


SCOTUS ruled in 1884 that John Elk was not a US Citizen, even though he was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial boundaries of the US. Elk failed the "allegiance test."

quote:

Every illegal immigrant fails the allegiance test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

SCOTUS ruled in 1884 that John Elk was not a US Citizen, even though he was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial boundaries of the US. Elk failed the "allegiance test."

He failed the allegiance test because he was born a native American on a reservation (which has legal technicalities that make it not part of the U.S.
All of that was made moot by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-indian-citizenship-act

quote:

Every illegal immigrant fails the allegiance test.

According to the case cited only if born on a "reservation" and had allegiance to that tribe which had a treaty with the U.S..
Giving native Americans the right to vote at that time would be about like letting Isis vote today.
Every president from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt echoed the sentiment (popularized by Phillip Sheridan) that "the only good indian is a dead one.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution.

quote:


No, it wasn't that he was born on a reservation, but that he had allegiance other than the US at birth.

quote:

This is also why foreign diplomat's children born on American soil aren't granted birthright citizenship.

quote:

Illegal immigrants have allegiance to their home countries, not the US. Thus, they, too, fail the allegiance portion of the 14th Amendment.