And, BTW, if illegal immigrants were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, ICE would have no jurisdiction to detain or arrest them.
|
|
|
|
|
And, BTW, if illegal immigrants were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, ICE would have no jurisdiction to detain or arrest them.
And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Wages have risen 3.1% the past year. The most since 2008, pre-obummer. I posted a while back that wages were lagging the booming economy, but would catch up. I explained the reasons then. Well, they are starting to catch up....but, will hit a wall if the Dems have their way.
The stock market should continue to do okay. The market likes "stability" even if that means gridlock. In fact, when Congress is gridlocked they can't do really stupid things, like increase taxes, so the market notes that and rocks on. The average American may suffer from the Dems' policies, but the market views things differently. In this case, if the Dems have the House, they will spend the next two years chasing ghosts, in their demented quest to undo the 2016 election. Nothing will happen, because the Senate has to vote too, and they won't support the goofy Dems in the House. So, while it may be aggravating to have to endure 2 more years of witch hunts, at least the Dems will be doing that, and our gallant president will continue with his policies: making America great!
Back to the main point...wages are rising. Good ole capitalism doing its thing. Sometimes the "free market" doesn't move as fast as we like, but it moves steadily and authentically. These are real wage increases, based on sound economic conditions. And wages will continue to trend up, if Trump's policies are allowed to continue to "cook."
If you are saying it is clear to you then sure. If you are saying there is no room for debate you are incorrect.
This has never been directly challenged so saying it isn't debatable is incorrect. People are debating it and have been for some time. That's not debatable.
I agree and that's why I think a challenge would fail.
There's always room for debate. The text is unambiguous. It is plain and easy to understand. The portion you quoted earlier could've easily been included in the amendment. It wasn't. This is, of course, why the law has been interpreted the way that it has been for all these years.
We can debate whether or not it matters that "that's what he said, but it's not what he meant", but that doesn't mean it isn't cut and dry as written.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Typically you don’t look to other canons of construction (and Framer’s intent falls way down the list on the canons one would use) where the language is clear on its face.
Cut and dry is a matter of opinion. Clear on it's face is a matter of opinion. You and Guiss are getting a little authoritarian with your insistence that your opinion is the only correct one.
What it says is certainly clear, what it means can be slightly less so and the world won't fall apart.
Would you also say that the right to bear arms protects our rights to buy nuclear weapons? The founders didn't specifically exclude Nukes. They also didn't mention cell phones or abortion or TV news or satellite radio or video games. There is a reason our government is set up the way that it is and that is so questions like this can be answered.
Sign the Executive order Trump! Do it now!
Framer’s intent doesn’t matter because the words plain meaning is self evident. There is no ambiguity to decipher. The meaning of born has not changed, nor has the meaning of jurisdiction. The scope of what we claim jurisdiction over may have changed but that doesn’t change the effect of the clause. For example, if the US were to claim Canada as part of its territory, people born in that territory would henceforth be US citizens.
It does not follow the canons of construction to put a limit on the meaning of the words that are unambiguous because of arguments made during the legislative history (e.g., based on the legal effect that the various members of the legislature thought it would have). You only look at that sort of thing if there is ambiguity about the meaning of a word or phrase.
It'd be authoritarian if I signed something that reversed precedent and went against the clear reading of the unambiguous text...
The second amendment is far more ambiguous.
As you've already said, the challenge would fail. You can say that with reasonable confidence because of the clarity of the language.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I say it with reasonable confidence because challenges along the same lines have already been presented and decided in favor. Not because of the clarity of the language.It'd be authoritarian if I signed something that reversed precedent and went against the clear reading of the unambiguous text...
The second amendment is far more ambiguous.
As you've already said, the challenge would fail. You can say that with reasonable confidence because of the clarity of the language.
The language of the second amendment is not more ambiguous. It's interpretation is certainly debated much more, but the language is just as clear as the other amendments.
Authoritarian would be not allowing legal challenge to an ambiguous text because you believe it's unambiguous and it doesn't suit your interests. Or more to what you are trying to indicate, authoritarian would be enforcing the executive order in spite of legal challenges.
Authoritarian would be violating your oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution. The courts don’t have the only responsibility in this regard. All branches are supposed to behave Constitutionally and not rely on the other branch to check their unconstitutional actions.
There is a hell of a lot of other authoritarian behaviors that our current POTUS has as well. Fortunately, Americans still have an opportunity to check him if they can overcome their tribal instincts.
He is sure to be impeached. Now your girl Pelosi says they are sure to win. You should be happy that they have another check in the long list of impeachable offenses.
Well, I started to type out a long response, but this is getting tiring. Good luck overcoming your tribal instincts I guess.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
