The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Are the lawyers actually more knowledgeable than the professors or is that the lawyers just better at playing the game? A professor probably might not be a good court lawyer because he's not good at the theatrics involved-doesn't speak well, not the right temperament, doesn't present himself well, etc.. A courtroom lawyer has to be a good salesman. A law professor spends most of his time teaching and research. Many write books or get their articles put in law reviews. You would think he would be much more knowledgeable.
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Do you really want to play "battle of the law professors?" I'm sure there are law professors who agree with him. Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School is probably the most respected constitutional scholar in the United States. He agrees with me. Do I think that gives my position more weight than it had before? No, but since you're pulling the "I have a law professor on my side" card and think that gives your position legitimacy, you should know that the biggest, baddest, swingin' nutsack of a MoFo of a ConLaw professor in the whole country says that you and your selected professor are full of it.

    Of course original intent is important. The disagreement is over what how that intent is found. Is it found in the words used, or is it found in speeches by one or two guys? If you believe in the rule of law, then the words used have to control.

    They try to do this all the time. You're doing the same thing.

    Yes, more lawyers and far more law professors agree with me, but I wouldn't care if I was the only lawyer in the whole world who saw it as I do. Why not? Because I believe in the rule of law, and that means that the amendment says and means what it says. If some people choose to pretend that it says something else, that doesn't make them right.

    Again, more legislative history and extratextual commentary rather than just reading the law. Look at this paragraph from the article.

    "And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “'all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.'”

    If the true legislative intent of the Amendment as to apply the same standard as was planned in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, then why not simply use the same language? The fact that Congress didn't do that should tell you something.

    A lawyer in private practice has to research and "teach" judges and juries with another lawyer doing his best to undermine what we're doing. That's a lot harder, and there's a lot more at stake. I'm not saying we're better than law professors. Some of us are, and some of us aren't. But it's more than just playing a game.
     
  3. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    I have to admit; I'm fuzzy on the whole "subject to our jurisdiction" language. Can we have an example of two babies born in the US; one subject to our jurisdiction and the other not?
     
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    An Australian tourist comes to the US while pregnant. She has a baby in the US. The baby is subject to our jurisdiction.

    The Luxembourgish ambassador to the US has a baby in the US. The baby is not subject to our jurisdiction.
     
  5. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    I'm sure glad the courts didn't rule in the 19th century that the 2nd amendment only pertained to militia men. You and that badass professor would probably be sticking up for that BS ruling. Btw, Lawrence Tribe is a liberal idiot. You need a better hero, Deez. Look at this drivel. Laurence Tribe: Trump’s evil threat on birthright citizenship is an attack on America | Opinion

    Edit: All of the evidence points to a misinterpretation from what the original amendment writers wanted, Deez. All of your shuckin' and jivin' doesn't change that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  6. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    All of the evidence points to a misinterpretation from what the original amendment writers wanted, Deez. All of your shuckin' and jivin' doesn't change that.
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Damn, dude. I didn't bring up Tribe because I like him or think he's anything special. I brought him up because you were bringing law professors into this discussion to reinforce your position, and in terms of Con Law profs, nobody's a bigger player than Tribe. I don't share the legal community's adoration of Tribe. Never have.

    And I'd enforce the Second Amendment as written, which wouldn't limit its application to militia members. In fact, it's much easier to make that argument with your mentality. Liberals do that all the time. They pretend that the Amendment's stated purpose is actually a limitation on its applicability.
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Lol. All the evidence except what they actually wrote and adopted.
     
  9. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    They tell you straight up what jurisdiction means and it's different from what you're saying it means.
     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You're mind is made up and slammed shut, so I don't expect you to think beyond the box you've put yourself in. However, if anyone following along actually cares about the right answer, when a legislative body wants to adopt a special or specific definition to a term like "jurisdiction," it doesn't have one guy go make a comment somewhere. It defines the term and incorporates that definition into the law.

    So what's wrong with putting your stock in "Senator So-and-So says he means X?" A few things. First, when a court is interpreting a law, it's supposed to ascertain the intent of the legislature, not the intent of a single member, even if it's the member who put his name on the law. He's still just one member, and he doesn't speak for the body. Second, such comments and other forms of legislative history can conflict with each other. Third, they are illegitimate. We're governed by laws passed by Congress, not the Congressional Record that was only taken down by the official stenographers of the House and Senate. We have rules for interpreting laws as they are written. We don't need to run off and read so-called legislative history if we follow those rules.

    No, not everybody agrees with how I view the issue. Plenty of judges (especially liberal judges) do not. They'll pick through the legislative history until they find something that supports their policy preferences. People on the Right are supposed to be better.
     
  11. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Ah, yes. The arrogant, dismissive attitude I've learned to expect from you. The authors are clear what the intent is. It's not hard to figure out what the word "jurisdiction" means here either. It's obvious that it was misinterpreted but I don't think it will get overturned because of the politics involved. I'm done here.
     
  12. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    tenor.gif
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Not dismissive at all. I took your comments seriously and explained what's wrong with them. What you're saying isn't crazy. It's wrong, but you're not unreasonable to think it. (You are unreasonable not to listen to someone who has expertise and a reason to know more than you do.) But if you want to take your dolly and go home, that's fine.
     
  14. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Well, I could probably trust your judgment a little more if you weren't actually bullshitting through most of this discussion. First, you said original intent wasn't important then change your story that original intent is important but we shouldn't base decisions on legislators because that's what libs do? WTF? Keep moving the goal posts there, Husker, Jr..
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    First, you'd never know if I was bullshitting. Second, I never said original intent wasn't important. Third, I never changed my story or changed any goalpost.

    The root of the problem is that you don't know what the hell "original intent" means, because you don't know whose intent matters. You're talking out your ***, but much worse, you're so sure that your *** knows what it's talking about.
     
    • poop poop x 1
  16. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    The other part of this issue is the idea of custom. I agree with Deez that the actual wording of the law is the most important thing for interpretation and the comments of the people at the time is helpful too. But in history custom many times preceded law. Law was the recognition of the ways things already were. In the case of the 14th amendment, through the last 150 years the way we have used it has become a custom. To now try to reinterpret the 14th and ignore the custom is very dangerous.
     
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You sir are illiterate.
     
  18. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    I see now why you and Husker get along so well.
     
  19. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    So we are then saying this was somehow driven to a such a large degree by the status of an ambassador's pregnant wife that it needed to be mentioned in the amendment?

    As for the tourist, does this mean a tourist legally here or is the status of the parent irrelevant under this amendment?
     
  20. militaryhorn

    militaryhorn Prediction Contest Manager

    Here is curve ball. What happens when an American tourist has a baby in another country?

    Do they have to apply for citizenship or since the parents are subject to jurisdiction of the US they are given citizenship?

    Under Deez's example before, I would read that as any non-diplomat, i.e. tourist, legal resident, illegal resident, child born here while they are within our borders would be a US citizen.

    They would all fall within our legal laws and could be arrested and detained or possibly put in prison. An illegal could be arrested and be ready to deport have the baby before leaving and the baby becomes a legal citizen...or am I totally wrong here?
     
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It's more than just ambassadors wives. It's every foreign employee of an embassy in the United States.

    Legal status isn't relevant to the equation. Can you throw the guy in the slammer through the normal process if he breaks the law, or is he expelled to his home country for prosecution? If he can be thrown in the slammer without having to ask his home country, then he's within your jurisdiction.
     
  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That's a different set of rules. You can be a US citizen through the Constitution or by statute. I was born in Oakland, California, so I am constitutional US citizen. Deez, Jr. was born in Wiesbaden, Germany. He's a US citizen but not because of the Constitution but because of federal statutes that grant citizenship to children born abroad to US citizens.

    It's more than just the actual diplomats, but yes, this is pretty much true.

    You are correct. It's a stupid rule, but it is the law.
     
  23. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    That was actually the opposite of my point, which was that if a Mexican national violates US law and then goes to the Mexican embassy, my understanding was that the US could not touch him unless/until the Mexican government released him. They could however also choose to bring him home without charges, if they decided to do that. Is that correct?
     
  24. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    This is also why Democrat questions about Ted Cruz' citizenship were so much hot air.
     
  25. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    I was thinking about the legal status of the parent outside the foreign employee of an embassy. I was too narrow in my question. So the language was specifically targeting every foreign employee of an embassy in the US meaning a baby born to an illegal immigrant in the US that is not a foreign employee of an embassy in the US is a citizen of the US per the 14th amendment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    They were hot air but for different reasons. Cruz's dad wasn't a citizen, which made it a little more complicated.
     
  27. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    MrD?
    If an American citizen mother gives birth anywhere but does not name a father in't the baby a US citizen?
     
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Less folks are LOLng about Trump's "Space Force" today ....

     
  29. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    I'll say this. I can't ever remember a sitting President working harder for his party than Trump did for his party this midterm election.

    The Republicans may have kept their distance from him when he won in 2016, but a bunch of them were sure happy to jump on his coattails now.

    Tomorrow we'll know if it worked or not.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    I agree with this, and it's not even close IMO. The GOPers who do not support President Trump really piss me off even more now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page