Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Yes. If I am the parent I agree with Deez. If I am the government or an American citizen I might agree with Horn6721, but you would have to change the law.

 

Exactly Mona
and that will not happen

 

We're not talking about every person in the world. We're talking about a US citizen with as much right to be here as you and me.

 

Yes they do because of the way the 14th Amendment has been interpreted.
That does not mean I think it is right to be gamed into having to use taxes to rear a child whose parents broke the law to have an anchor baby here.

 

Hell, two of the framers of the 14th amendment made it clear what they meant and the courts just ignored them.

 

Supreme Court Allows ‘Remain in Mexico’ Rule to Remain in Place

Guess who dissented? The wise Latina racist. A plant on the court to vote exclusively in favor of Latino interests. She is a disgrace. That is why we need Republican Presidents.

 

Well, it's being interpreted to mean what it says. I don't like the result or the policy, but I can't call myself a strict constructionist and reach a different outcome.

Two problems with this. First, the intent of the authors of a law aren't determinative when it comes to interpreting a law. It's the intent of the legislature collectively that matters.

Second, that intent is ascertained first and foremost by the words used in the law. The rule of law itself depends on that. If Congress meant something other than birthright citizenship, they could have and should have said so.

 

So if a Liberal say's we don't need the electoral college or we need more regulation of guns because times have changed etc. can we not say birthright is no longer effective or smart because times have changed?

 

We can if we don't care about the rule of law the same way they don't care. I do care about it.

 

Right. I was just saying that challenging their basis to change the law whether by amendment or activist judge.

 

Has the rule of law ever been amended?

 

I meant the Constitution.

 

That's your opinion, Deez. Original intent is a huge factor. Don't tell me I'm wrong because I know many lawyers who agree with me on the 14th.

 

You're wrong, and the lawyers who agree with you are hacks. No offense.

 

We've had this argument before. You're the one that is wrong.

 

Gotta get to bed, but I'll explain in the morning.

 

by
I knew that. It was not directed at you.
I wish there was a remote chance to amend the 14th
But I do not think there is

 

This Sotomayor really is polluting my mind. How blatant can she be as a plant for Latino's and Mexico? She is acting like a House Representative; totally partisan and unstatesmanlike. I was bothered when Obama's second pick was denied by delay. Not anymore. She is the one who should be impeached, not conservative justices who err as close on point with the law AS WRITTEN as they can. It's sick.

 

The problem when words alone define the law without original intent being a factor you get:

1) 14th amendment misinterpretation
2) We almost got the 2nd amendment destroyed.

The problem with words alone is that 1) Words can be easily interpreted to mean something else (14th amendment) 2) Words change meaning over time. (the word "regulated") which almost got the 2nd amendment overturned.

This is why liberal lawyers hate original intent. Much harder to overturn something they don't like.

 

These same lawyer friends you called hacks have looked over your posts over the last few years and they've told me a few things how they feel about you. I'll list some of the things they said:

1) A few thought you should stick to insurance and keep your trap shut about everything else.
2) A few don't even believe you're even a real lawyer.
3) I did find one that agreed with you on a few topics (14th) over me but he still thought you're a jackass.
4) That one time you said that Trump should be investigated because he was licking Putin's balls(paraphrase) one of my friends who was looking over my shoulder turned to me and said, "This guy is an idiot. "

Many of them are more accomplished than you are. You always have to make these arguments personal and you just did. I told you before the more I interact with you the more I understand why you and Husker get along so swimmingly.

Deez, being a conservative means believing in originalism. Hell, it's the heart of conservatism. When you praise yahoos like Laurence Tribe you're on the wrong side.

 

Does the definition of a word 250 years ago require intent or just knowledge? From what I understand, well-regulated meant drilled; organized and not regulations in terms of limitations, background checks and limits on firepower. I believe the Left knows this and just don't care. So is it intent or is it definitional?

I always thought the use of the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment to be genius; it's scalable. What if they had said muskets, swords and knives?

 

That is an interesting question. We'd be stuck with muskets, swords and knives if we listened to the left.

 

Before I get into this, I was honestly busting your balls jokingly with my last post. I didn't mean to offend, and I apologize to you and your friends if I did. However, you are still wrong or at a minimum, misunderstanding.

Well, at least they admit that I'm authoritative about insurance. Lol. Finding lawyers who disagree with me on something isn't hard. I'm a conservative plaintiffs' attorney and a strict constructionist and outspoken and unapologetic about all of it. There are like 3 of us on the planet. We're used to being disagreed with, told that we're wrong, and sometimes ridiculed.

That's fine. You don't have to think I'm a lawyer. My professed credentials don't make me right. A one-armed, illiterate donkey show fluffer in Nuevo Laredo saying the same thing would be just as right.

If you found one who disagrees with me on the 14th, he is the black sheep. That's probably a 90-10 issue in the legal community. And yes, I can be a jackass. I try to be respectful, but there are definitely times when I'm not.

Furthermore, at least around here, I hold conservatives to a higher standard. There's crap that I'll take from OUBubba that I won't take from you, because you should know better. To invoke Chris Rock, calling a guy like him out everytime he's wrong is like playing one on one with a retarded kid and calling him for double dribbling. You have to let some **** slide. Otherwise, I'd be correcting him all day long. You're in a different boat. I can afford to nitpick and hassle you when you're wrong, because you're not wrong several times each day.

Was it only one time?? That ball licking reference really rubbed you the wrong way. In recent years you've brought it up more than I have - makes me wonder if you've got an issue on that practice. Either way, whether you've noticed it or were too preoccupied with the thought of ball licking (either giving or receiving) I've walked back the Putin stuff in recent years and even defended Trump on it a few times. It's not because he didn't rhetorically lick his balls. He said what he said. However, his policy (fortunately) hasn't been consistent with the rhetoric. Nevertheless, if you polled the legal profession (since you're playing that card to try to discredit me), I'm willing to bet that far more agreed with me that that an investigation was justified even if not handled correctly or fairly.

I stopped practicing after ten years and became a stay at home dad. I hope they're more accomplished. If legal accomplishment was priority 1 for me, I'd still be in Austin practicing. I enjoyed doing it, but I valued something else more and don't apologize for that or care if anyone thinks I'm unaccomplished or less of an authority because of it.

I called Laurence Tribe the "Paul Krugman of Constitutional Law." That's not a compliment or praise. Quite the contrary. I give Tribe's opinions very little weight.

You don't get it. My view (which would be commonly known as textualism) isn't inconsistent with original intent. It means that the text is supreme when ascertaining original intent. It doesn't mean you let the definition evolve with the times. You follow the ordinary meaning of the words used in the law at the time they were written. So no, we don't apply the 21st century definition of "regulate" when looking at the Second Amendment or the interstate commerce clause. We apply the 18th century definition.

However, the key factor is that we don't let one member of Congress say "we enacted X but we meant Y" and then pretend that has more authority than the actual words Congress passed into law. If Congress wants a different definition applied (whether it's narrower, broader, or just different), they can say so by including a definitions section in the law they pass, or they can change the law. However, one guy's comment isn't going to trump the words used and shouldn't induce the judiciary to set aside the ordinary meaning of the words to suit his intent. If we do, then we're effectively making that one lawmaker the true legislative authority rather than Congress as a whole. If you prefer to be governed by the mindless ramblings of people like Maxine Waters or Ilhan Omar, that's up to you. I prefer something a little more objective. It's not perfect, but it's much better and less prone to tyranny.

 

This is a continuation of the Liberal coup:

Senators demand records illuminating dark money ties to Supreme Court appointments

Remember, Sotomayor is their idea of a jurist. It's sick.

 

I am going with Garmel on this one. If you don't consider original intent, then the words used don't mean anything. The lawyer is then free to twist and contort them to mean whatever he wants. That isn't rule of law. That is arbitrary rule of men.

 

It is both bystander. You use the definitions as understood by the author. However, even if you agree on the definitions there can be differences in interpretation. That is why you go back to previous laws, previous writings by the authors, and what people were saying about the law at the time. To do anything less is to neglect your duty as a lawyer or judge.

 

Does SCOTUS reference The Federalist Papers?

Also, I'm wondering if intent here really means, "The people can arm themselves for whatever reason they want without having to actually state that reason" or "The people can only arm themselves if they are a regular part of a well-drilled militia made up of citizens, separate from the actual army."

 

That is a good explanation, but I will offer an additional thought.

If you are using 1 Congressman's words to interpret a law and ignoring all others that disagree with you, then I completely agree.

However, we have historical records of the different parties at the time. So you can read the words of multiple Congressmen, how they explain the law, the debates over the law, etc. That is what I mean by original intent. It isn't merely definitions. It isn't only the words in the law, though that is the first priority. It isn't even the words of one politician commenting on the law. It is the full body of commentary on the law when it was drafted, debated, voted on, and later explained.

I will say I would give more weight to the actual author(s) of the law, than what others said about it. If a Congressman writes a bill, explains what he means and debates it with others, I am going to focus on that since he is the source.

 

Yep. It's pretty much common sense. This is why conservatives are originalists.

 

I did that myself back in 1999 for about a year. I compliment you on your priorities. I heard mixed messages from the men I knew. But I'm glad I did it.