Planned Parenthood is in the baby killing business rather ironic that they have any position on birthright.
Totally get that. PP'S response seems to be as odd as Trump's. I understand what Trump wants to do and even why. But those pesky rights...his argument has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind.
In the case of the current liberal mindset with open borders they are giving rights to a fetus before it is born. Funny how a single cell on Mars would be considered life on another planet yet a child in a womb is a choice.
I support a constitutional amendment or a new law from congress to change the anchor baby loophole. I realize that it will never happen, but we need congressional action rather than an executive order. By using an EO, the president is hoping to legislate from the bench, which is what constitutional conservatives have railed against forever. I am a Trump voter, but he's taking a play from obama's playbook here. I didn't like it then, therefore, I don't like it now.
All I said was we made more steel between 2012-2014 then we do now, that' it. So I was completely right I also said we are trending up, which is also correct. You said and I quote "We're making our own steel again." Facts are we have been making our own steel for a long time. So once again you were wrong, and spreading fake news, I was just trying to help.
It is, that's my only hesitation, but my argument is this. It took an illegal act to get in this country, why are we rewarding a person for breaking the law? There is nothing illegal about US citizen owning a gun.
Does Trump know that he can't change the 14th Amendment by executive order? Will this new law affect Russians who pay huge sums of money to have their children in the U.S. then go back to Russia once the child is born?
I am seriously interested in your mindset, I don't get the thought that Russians are paying somebody huge amounts of $ to have a child in the US, a tourist visa is free who would have to be paid other than the hospital bill?
If you are working the Russian/Trump angle you are not a very progressive liberal, the rest of your party is barking up a different tree by now.
When five minutes after you get in your stand the hook your bow is hanging on breaks and your bow falls 15’ bouncing of the stand on the way down. Pretty sure it is shooting low now amongst the craziness of moving and closing on a house today and yesterday I have to find a way to get my bow to the shop and have it looked over. Lost a little dampener for sure. Saw a shooter at 45 yards that night. It was through thick stuff so I couldn’t have shot anyway but still aggravating Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
he's not "arguing against it" nor "change"ing it; his position and executive order proposal would be clarification of the Executive Branch's interpretation and execution thereof. He's the head of the Executive Branch. -IF- he signs an executive order it will be with the concurrence of the AG and Solicitor General stating that the Executive Branch's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that the Amendment does not apply to children born to foreign national citizens of other countries (who would be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" said native countries.) The author of the 14th Amendment stated that in no way should the Amendment be considered to apply to children of foreign nationals. The Supreme Court has since the passing of the 14th Amendment already ruled as such: Elk vs. US- “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” In other words, there is no Constitutional birthright citizenship to those born to non-US citizens (with some exceptions; such as legal permanent residents.) Recognition of such (yay or nay) is subject to legislation...or arguably Executive order. I am by and large not in favor of ExOs. However, where legislation is absent or lacking in clarity, it is the prerogative of the Executive Branch to issue policy which clarifies its actions in the execution of laws on the books. That's all an Executive Order is- policy. Think of this as DJT legislating in reverse- Congress is too chicken coop to actually pass a bill on this; so he issues an ExO knowing it will be challenged in court; forcing Congress to either codify his actions (Sen. Graham already saying he is going author bill to do so) or the Federal Courts to uphold/overturn his Executive action. It's actually a brilliant political move in the Machiavellian sense. Obama did it all the time- issue an ExO, and dare Congress to legislate against it or let the Courts decide to uphold or overturn. I didn't like it but more importantly I hated that Congress lacked the balls to actually move relevant legislation. Checks and balances only work when someone is willing to stand up. In this particular case, interpretation of the original intent and subsequent rulings would, in my legal opinion, actually appear to favor the President's opinion. Smart people would and could argue otherwise and it will end up in Federal Court either way. It would be best for Congress to legislate it first. However until such time; the President is within his authority to issue policy in regards to the implementation of that law as he and his administration see fit. If you can stomach her snark, Ann Coulter is very well-versed on this issue. Also prescient; as this is from 2015- https://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-guarantee-birthright-citizenship/
Sorry not listening to Ms. Coulter. But, believe it or not I agree that the law does need to change. But, the fact is if Trump tries to change it via EO it will be an 8-1 vote in the supreme court shutting it down (the exception of Kavanaugh I'm sure)
