Its official Megyn Kelly is a bimbo, according to Donald Trump

[HomerJS]

Trump is a raging moron.

If I was born with the silver spoon he had in my mouth with that battery of lawyers I imagine I'd be a lot richer than him and not went bankrupt 4 times.

But I imagine the lawyers told him to do that now and then.

Would kinda suck if ya put him in charge and he bankrupts the US in general, on top of the fact he has no diplomacy skills and is ignorant period on most things involving the military.

So who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows? He gets Republican ratings, baby!!

 

[Strk]

Well, I do love the fact that he repeatedly calls Megyn Kelly a bimbo. Because, quite frankly, she is a bimbo. I mean, come on, does anyone REALLY think that her soaring intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of politics is what got her her gig on Fox?

How dare you question one of Fox's interchangeable blondes!

 

[MongGrel]

So who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows? He gets Republican ratings, baby!!

This is true more or less.

Just sad to see things like an election on that side of the boat trying to run like a bad reality show.

It will get worse before it gets any better, I imagine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Birthright citizenship for illegals is idiotic at this point. Anybody can jump the border, have a baby, and boom, have a citizen. To think otherwise is naive and, quite frankly, idiotic.

People citing "english common law" is also silly. Illegals don't owe their allegiance to the US. The court cases used to support birthright are misplaced and misunderstood.

So, uhh, children born in this country are illegals? Not according to the Constitution.

The rest? You assume greater insight & authority than the federal judiciary has exercised since 1898 in case after case.

Who ya gonna believe? Raving internet bigots or 117 years of jurisprudence?

 

[LegendKiller]

So, uhh, children born in this country are illegals? Not according to the Constitution.

The rest? You assume greater insight & authority than the federal judiciary has exercised since 1898 in case after case.

Who ya gonna believe? Raving internet bigots or 117 years of jurisprudence?

How any gun control laws are there in this country despite numerous USSC rulings?


The USSC did not rule whether illegals can have a child here that is an automatic citizen. They never took that question up. Their ruling was different from what I have read.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

iDonaldTrumpThreadCount++;

 

[Jaskalas]

Yee-haw! The feud's on a-gin!!! Frankenstein monster eating its parent. Gotta love it.

What if the "parent" is Wall Street and the 1% of the 1%?
Does it bother you if he's slaying your enemies?

 

[Jhhnn]

How any gun control laws are there in this country despite numerous USSC rulings?

Need to divert?

The USSC did not rule whether illegals can have a child here that is an automatic citizen. They never took that question up. Their ruling was different from what I have read.

Your sources for what you have read have your bigoted delusions dialed in & you wrapped around their little finger.

Parentage is immaterial because all persons on US soil other than diplomats are under US jurisdiction & subject to our laws. Period.

Parentage of a newborn is immaterial because they are under US jurisdiction immediately at birth. The wording of the 14th amendment is crystal clear in that respect-

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No measure of convoluted legalese can get around that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Need to divert?

Hardly a divert. Liberals have been trying to reinterpret the Constitution for decades. What's good for the goose...

Your sources for what you have read have your bigoted delusions dialed in & you wrapped around their little finger.

Parentage is immaterial because all persons on US soil other than diplomats are under US jurisdiction & subject to our laws. Period.

Parentage of a newborn is immaterial because they are under US jurisdiction immediately at birth. The wording of the 14th amendment is crystal clear in that respect-



No measure of convoluted legalese can get around that.

Hardly, you can find many references by legal scholars over many decades, including when the USSC issued it's decision that allows for interpretation. You don't want it to be so because you'd lose voters. Liberals master those that feed from their hand. You'd never want to teach men to fish, far easier to feed them fish so they'll come back tomorrow and beg for another.

 

[CitizenKain]

Hardly, you can find many references by legal scholars over many decades, including when the USSC issued it's decision that allows for interpretation. You don't want it to be so because you'd lose voters. Liberals master those that feed from their hand. You'd never want to teach men to fish, far easier to feed them fish so they'll come back tomorrow and beg for another.

Or maybe because we are smart enough to know that rightwingers like you would start working to disenfranchise even more people. Hope disenfranchise isn't too big a word for you, most Trump supporters seem to have issues with lots of letters.

 

[LegendKiller]

Or maybe because we are smart enough to know that rightwingers like you would start working to disenfranchise even more people. Hope disenfranchise isn't too big a word for you, most Trump supporters seem to have issues with lots of letters.

And others are smart enough to know that you want to enfranchise enough voters to keep power, hence giving them fish. What's funny is that big business wants the same thing, en endless stream of dependents that can be manipulated for votes.

 

[Sonikku]

I hope he gets the nomination. Fox will have no choice but to knee jerk from doing their darnedest to trip him up to having to support red team at all costs, regardless as for who holds the banner.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hardly a divert. Liberals have been trying to reinterpret the Constitution for decades. What's good for the goose...



Hardly, you can find many references by legal scholars over many decades, including when the USSC issued it's decision that allows for interpretation. You don't want it to be so because you'd lose voters. Liberals master those that feed from their hand. You'd never want to teach men to fish, far easier to feed them fish so they'll come back tomorrow and beg for another.

Hurfity-burfity-burf.

The rest? Speculation among legal "scholars" claiming that the SCOTUS "could have" ruled the other way. They did not, and they almost certainly never will, given the breadth & depth of case law developed on the Wong Kim Ark ruling and those previous.

You're chasing a pot o' gold at the end of a racist rainbow.

 

[Jhhnn]

I hope he gets the nomination. Fox will have no choice but to knee jerk from doing their darnedest to trip him up to having to support red team at all costs, regardless as for who holds the banner.

That'd be Special, huh?

 

[LegendKiller]

Hurfity-burfity-burf.

The rest? Speculation among legal "scholars" claiming that the SCOTUS "could have" ruled the other way. They did not, and they almost certainly never will, given the breadth & depth of case law developed on the Wong Kim Ark ruling and those previous.

You're chasing a pot o' gold at the end of a racist rainbow.

Ahh yes, if all else fails, claim racism. I don't give a shit what you are. Come here legally and I am good.

 

[fskimospy]

Hardly, you can find many references by legal scholars over many decades, including when the USSC issued it's decision that allows for interpretation. You don't want it to be so because you'd lose voters. Liberals master those that feed from their hand. You'd never want to teach men to fish, far easier to feed them fish so they'll come back tomorrow and beg for another.

It's settled law. You can find a legal scholar to dispute anything, it doesn't change the fact that we have more than a century of continuous precedent in the courts, statutes, and regulations supporting birthright citizenship. The reason why conservatives and Trump in particular want to try and change it is because they find the Constitution's protections to be inconvenient to their policy goals. Well, too bad. Want to revoke birthright citizenship? Amend the Constitution.

Oh wait, there's no way that's going to happen? No shit. Let's put that on the enormous pile of stupid bullshit that Trump has tried to put forth to attract people who appreciate tough sounding talk over actually thinking. He's the perfect twitterhead candidate; people who can't think for more than 140 characters LOVE this guy.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

it amazes me that people still support trumplestiltskin. he's nothing more than a bloviating, misogynistic, schoolyard bully.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahh yes, if all else fails, claim racism. I don't give a shit what you are. Come here legally and I am good.

All persons born on US soil came here legally, by definition of the 14th amendment. They are born American citizens no matter how badly nativists wish otherwise.

White America has enormous insecurity facing the prospect of perhaps becoming an ethnic minority in this country. That hasn't changed since the Irish immigration. They were also held to be "different" ethnicity, along with Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Italians & even Germans.

Today, of course, all those people are regarded as White Americans, a sort of super ethnicity. Hispanics are not yet held to be part of that group but will be rather shortly in terms of historical time frames.

So get your robes & torches to fight back- quite why I'm not sure- or get over yourself & your so-called "values" about what it means to be an American.

 

[HomerJS]

What if the "parent" is Wall Street and the 1% of the 1%?
Does it bother you if he's slaying your enemies?

Parent being Fox News. They gave him so much air time and allowed him to say all kinds of crazy shit for years until the GOP base loved him.

Now he's turning on them and doing the unthinkable, a GOP politician calling out Fox News and Roger Ailes. He's exposing how much Fox and Ailes twist the electorate. The base is siding with Trump.

 

[LegendKiller]

All persons born on US soil came here legally, by definition of the 14th amendment. They are born American citizens no matter how badly nativists wish otherwise.

White America has enormous insecurity facing the prospect of perhaps becoming an ethnic minority in this country. That hasn't changed since the Irish immigration. They were also held to be "different" ethnicity, along with Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Italians & even Germans.

Today, of course, all those people are regarded as White Americans, a sort of super ethnicity. Hispanics are not yet held to be part of that group but will be rather shortly in terms of historical time frames.

So get your robes & torches to fight back- quite why I'm not sure- or get over yourself & your so-called "values" about what it means to be an American.

There isn't a USSC ruling that has said that. You cannot just imagine it to be true.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally and domiciled in the us.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Back to Megyn Kelly. I don't like how she gave Jeb all softball questions and Trump hard ones. That isn't right or what people wanted to see.
This doesn't mean she needs to apologize to Trump any more than Trump needs to apologize to a landowner whose view has been ruined by a Trump hotel.

 

[fskimospy]

There isn't a USSC ruling that has said that. You cannot just imagine it to be true.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally and domiciled in the us.

I've yet to see anyone respond to this analysis in a substantive way:

http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

This is the relevant quote from Wong Kim Ark:

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. … To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

You will see quite clearly from the ruling that they go out of their way to state that citizenship is granted by birth within the territory. They happen to mention that also includes resident aliens. Then they go to describe all the exceptions to that rule, none of which happens to be if people had complied with immigration law correctly or not.

Unless you are attempting to argue that SCOTUS thought there were other, secret exemptions from this that they declined to mention that's that.

Additionally quoted in the article is this excerpt from Phyler:

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” …[N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

While the decision overall was 5-4, there was no dissent on that statement

Now remember: the 14th amendment says this:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So there are two requirements:
1. Being born in the US.
2. Being subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

SCOTUS says there is: "No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Born in the US? Check. In the jurisdiction of the US? Check.

Case closed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally and domiciled in the us.

Immaterial.

 

[Jhhnn]

it amazes me that people still support trumplestiltskin. he's nothing more than a bloviating, misogynistic, schoolyard bully.

Righties crave "Strong Leadership!" particularly if they believe there's a "crisis" like OMFG Anchor Babies!

If there is no crisis, then that leadership & wannabee leadership will manufacture one to suit the circumstances. Witness every scandal trumped up by the right wing since they slimed Bert Lance.

Never mind what they've done when faced with a real crisis, the collapse of the Ownership Society scam & the near collapse of the economy as a result. That's way different. It was induced by their own policy, so it couldn't have really been a crisis at all, right?

It's the same w/ immigration- their tight fisted policy insures that there are plenty of people who can cross the border illegally & their refusal to compromise on amnesty makes sure it stays that way so they'll have a perpetual issue & an ingrained public irrationality that's fertile ground for propaganda of all sorts.

 

[LegendKiller]

Immaterial.

It is not immaterial. It has never been ruled on.

Plyler does not legitimize illegals, it called into questions texas' way of denying education, not that they couldn't. They just need a better reason. That reason, like the other reasons to remove them, is that they are an economic drain on the country.