Posted on 10/31/2018 2:59:41 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
Tucker Carlson Tonight Fox News 10/30/18 Fox News Today October 30 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=134&v=-eHHuYzGk_g
And are we happy that Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Terrorist, kids are US citizens. Ain’t that grand.
Tucker’s ‘opening’ was excellent.
He gets better and better!
Whoops, wrong thread.
He was really good.
The author should have made sure that wording was in the amendment...
The author was not the only cook in the kitchen.
There was no concern at the time. Amendments are not written to cover every imaginable concern. That is why SCOTUS reviews intent and meaning by inspecting the Congressional Record.
BTTT
*pounds the desk* that’s what I’ve been telling my friends. The original context of the 14th amendment wasn’t designed for this and it’s being abused. I can hardly watch Tucker’s interviews but his opening statements usually rock.
>
There was no concern at the time. Amendments are not written to cover every imaginable concern. That is why SCOTUS reviews intent and meaning by inspecting the Congressional Record.
>
Ho, ha....that’s funny. SCOTUS reviewing the Congressional record.
Next you’ll be telling me they (re)read the (Anti)Federalist papers, let alone the Constitution, when it comes to the 2nd, or O’Care, or...
Tucker’s segment on the 14th Amendment was by far the best that I saw on TV. Most reporters and commentators were clueless at best or simply lying. The political types do not understand the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so they just ignore it. It is the key to the understanding of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Trump’s original statement on this indicated that he was considering two approaches. Legislation or an Executive Order. I agree with Andrew McCarthy’s view, that an Executive Order would not pass muster with the Supreme Court. Lindsey Graham has the right approach.
Let’s assume the drafters of that amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
1. “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,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the second version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. President Trump is correct - the author did make sure that wording was in the Amendment.
If your argument is that a baby cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, I will support your interpretation... color me trumped.
My argument is that a baby born to a person who is not subject to US jurisdiction is also not subject to US jurisdiction. If an illegal or a diplomat can appeal to their home government when in trouble here, that is evidence that their real government is elsewhere. It is only legal permanent residents who have left the jurisdiction of their home country and are subject to US jurisdiction.
The confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh makes a huge impact.
Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and their clerks and research staff will review everything according to the full historical meaning and intent.
He’s a musical genius.......
If you get a chance, see him live. As much fun as a Trump rally! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.