Fake News thread

[Mega Hertz]

Some are saying I ate the last custard donut in the breakroom. Fake news. The guy in the room before me ate it.

[Deleted User 8570]

Just because I'm in the mood to be a troll today...

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

True - the ruling and the amendment were to solve problems with freed slaves. However, the 14th Amendment also states, and I quote - "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Executive orders be damned!

This will be fun to watch.

At first I said, "There is no SCOTUS ruling that grants birthright citizenship upon children of illegal aliens." I stand by that.

As far as enforcement, I point you to the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Does it not make sense that one look to the original intent of the author of the Citizenship Clause when examining the 14th Amendment and citizenship? U.S. Senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard (The Author), wrote:

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

I further contend that being as enforcement of immigration law falls squarely on the Executive Branch and as such has plenary power, an Executive Order on this matter is certainly justifiable.

The part about ambassadors and such was tossed out in 1898... nobody cares what the guy meant and that was 30 years after he meant it... if you want to go to original intent then you must use a gun made in 1790 in order to qualify for the second amendment protections you hold dear. No weapon made after that was intended for protection as it didn’t exist yet... do you really want to travel down this road and be obliterated with logic?

These things change and evolve... that’s why the constitution is amendable at all... the founders knew that but apparently originalists called in sick or something... so in short no it does not make a lick of sense to go by something written 150 years ago by the mans intent... he isn’t here and we have to decide in the context of 2018 what’s going to happen not in the context of somebody who couldn’t comprehend the automobile or computers or planes or tanks or any of a million other things that are commonplace now... he’s outdated, outmoded and unfortunately pretty irrelevant now...

Your ramblings are constitutionally illiterate.

And how is that? Go ahead. Try me.

[Bryce]

Just because I'm in the mood to be a troll today...

Again, the SCOTUS ruling you cite pertained to foreign citizen's that are here legally. Like the former slaves were.

True - the ruling and the amendment were to solve problems with freed slaves. However, the 14th Amendment also states, and I quote - "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Executive orders be damned!

This will be fun to watch.

At first I said, "There is no SCOTUS ruling that grants birthright citizenship upon children of illegal aliens." I stand by that.

As far as enforcement, I point you to the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Does it not make sense that one look to the original intent of the author of the Citizenship Clause when examining the 14th Amendment and citizenship? U.S. Senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard (The Author), wrote:

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

I further contend that being as enforcement of immigration law falls squarely on the Executive Branch and as such has plenary power, an Executive Order on this matter is certainly justifiable.

The part about ambassadors and such was tossed out in 1898... nobody cares what the guy meant and that was 30 years after he meant it... if you want to go to original intent then you must use a gun made in 1790 in order to qualify for the second amendment protections you hold dear. No weapon made after that was intended for protection as it didn’t exist yet... do you really want to travel down this road and be obliterated with logic?

These things change and evolve... that’s why the constitution is amendable at all... the founders knew that but apparently originalists called in sick or something... so in short no it does not make a lick of sense to go by something written 150 years ago by the mans intent... he isn’t here and we have to decide in the context of 2018 what’s going to happen not in the context of somebody who couldn’t comprehend the automobile or computers or planes or tanks or any of a million other things that are commonplace now... he’s outdated, outmoded and unfortunately pretty irrelevant now...

Your ramblings are constitutionally illiterate.

And how is that? Go ahead. Try me.

Ok, how's this? You're a fucking moron.

[Mega Hertz]

The above statement is the "intolerant left", especially as when someone on the left is devoid of fact, they turn to insults.

Oh, shit, wait...

[Deleted User 8570]

The above statement is the "intolerant left", especially as when someone on the left is devoid of fact, they turn to insults.

Oh, shit, wait...

Well said... I’m glad we’ve outed another closet leftist posing as a patriot around here...

We must save America from this scourge...

Apparently they get nasty when they have no rebuttal...

[Mega Hertz]

I kid. I like Bryce. But I do that as an example. I called some right wingers "dingbats" (oh, the irony) on a Facebook status, and they got all butt-hurt. One guy said the exact same thing to me. Two days later, he got beat in an argument and resorted to name calling. I took a screenshot of his response and commented it right below his insult.

Haven't talked to him since.

[Bryce]

I guess I erred. I meant to put a smiley face on the name calling post. I said it with a smile and meant to be more of a jab than name calling.

When I have time, and energy, to rebut the nonsense you posted, I will.

[Deleted User 8570]

I guess I erred. I meant to put a smiley face on the name calling post. I said it with a smile and meant to be more of a jab than name calling.

When I have time, and energy, to rebut the nonsense you posted, I will.

I’m looking forward to it... sometimes I think this place is like a neighborhood bar... we even have a rotation of beers in another thread...