Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[mojo84]

Before you head to the polls tomorrow, please consider these accomplishments.

www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration ... lishments/

[philbo]

I will allow you the last word after this as we clearly are at impasse and I am not going to make an honest attempt at a discussing an issues with your dedication to the the ad homenim. I will just say this. I have clearly presented the legal precedence which you and your side of the aisle who prefer a broader definition do not accept. Fortunately that is precisely what the SCOTUS is for is to settle questions such as this. My guess is they will do exactly that in regard to the 14th, pending 2nd issues, and many more. I will go ahead and address what is sure to be a diatribe about court stacking with this. Elections matter. Blue lost in 2016.
Be blessed.

Your original post made a conclusion and used only the Elk case and a single quote from the original debates to support your conclusion. In fact, you made the assertion that you were unaware of any other case on the matter. My reply provided not just a rebuttal to Elk, but pointed to a series of cases including the seminal case Wong Kim Ark which is recognized as the controlling case by all authorities. I agreed that one might argue that case differently for a different result to be put to SCOTUS, but you have yet to address this case and explain how it does not apply. In addition, you cherry picked a quote from the original debates without reading the arguments by the original drafters in context, even after the original copies of the debates were provided. Further, you failed to even examine Wong Kim Ark and it's treatment of the original debates, common law, or the how SCOTUS in that case interpreted the salughterhouse cases of which Elk is just one. I can only surmise that you consider reading the original texts and competing case law is not worthy of your time. Such an attitude is indicative of the confirmation bias in your argument and common among armchair lawyers who don't want to do the hard work of digging thru the data to organize their argument in a manner even a high school debate team would find acceptable. Last, you never addressed the underlying question from the original post, which is not can birthright citizenship be overturned, but how one might do so with a presidential directive. That's ok, I'll leave you to your armchair hermeneutics and move on to arguing real cases.

[oljames3]

Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.

[philbo]

But wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58

I strongly suggest that you do better research on your points. When you repeat false claims it really hurts your credibility in all other arguments. The military is not prohibited from all police activities in the US. The law prohibiting this is called the Posse Comitatus Act and it is in the US code in Title 18, section 1385. The wording of the law forbids the military from being used as a posse except for where authorized by the Congress (among other exceptions).

I'm not sure what falsehood you are saying was made. I'm perfectly aware of The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and how it restricts the U.S. military from acting as law enforcement on U.S. soil. without approval from congress. In the present case this means troops will not be authorized to "detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping" the migrant caravan, the Military Times reports. Instead, troops will "largely mirror that of the existing National Guard" already at the border. Maybe congress passed new authorizations recently, but I am unaware they were in session...?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... er-can-do/

One of the known exceptions, for example, is that the military can be used to help enforce drug laws. This was how the military was used in several recent encounters against US citizens, with the most notable in our area being in Waco against the Branch Davidians (the ATF told the AG and our Governor that they suspected them of having drugs). Another one, used and favored by the Democratic Party, is that the President may order the military out to enforce federal law. The example of this being favors by the Democrats is when the 101st Airborne Division was ordered out to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Ark in 1957.

I could be wrong, but I understand after some very brief research that the deployment of military troops to the border to enforce federal law is within the legal authority of the president. If you want to argue against it, you might use the example of what happened when Marines were assigned to patrol the border. That resulted in them shooting Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., a US citizen on his own property. You might not want to use it as an example though, because that was in 1997 when a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) assigned active duty troops to patrol our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in while carrying drugs. Kind of cuts against your argument of it being illegal to use troops to enforce the law.

As far as being authorized to use deadly force to protect against rock throwing? Even if the caravan arrives at some point in the future (pretty evident they won't be here by tomorrow), pretty clear the military will not be authorized to do so, or if they would follow such an illegal order. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, retired U.S. Army officer recently tweeted: "[T]here is no leader in the military - Officer or NCO - who would allow a soldier to shoot at an individual throwing a rock. They know that violates the rules of engagement, the law of land warfare & the values those in the military believe. It would be an unlawful order." Maybe you believe differently?

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make about the 1998 killing. It was a wrongful death then (and I believe criminal), and would be stupid to repeat that sort of circumstance again today. To make matters worse though, is now we have a president who seems to want such a confrontation and seems hellbent on making it happen. But who knows, in a few weeks after the election, tRump might just drop the whole thing as nothing more than an attempt to sow fear and get people to vote on that issue alone.

[philbo]

Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.

I do enjoy the ignore list advocates, especially as it separates the closed minds from the critical thinkers. Please feel free to return to the Ostrich position.

[03Lightningrocks]

Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.

I do enjoy the ignore list advocates, especially as it separates the closed minds from the critical thinkers. Please feel free to return to the Ostrich position.

While you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.

[G26ster]

With respect to the Posse Comitatus Act, I believe the president can take the troops out of a support role into an enforcement roles based upon the following exception in the act:

Exclusions and limitations

Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957.

Breaking into the country illegally is a violation of federal law. Those that seek asylum will have to await an individual/family decision. Those breaking or sneaking in are federal law breakers.

[rotor]

In the present case this means troops will not be authorized to "detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping" the migrant caravan,

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Coast Guard routinely seize drugs from smugglers? The Coast Guard is a military force isn't it?

[G26ster]

In the present case this means troops will not be authorized to "detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping" the migrant caravan,

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Coast Guard routinely seize drugs from smugglers? The Coast Guard is a military force isn't it?

Although it is an armed service, the U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, is not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act but has explicit authority to enforce federal law. This is true even when the Coast Guard is operating as a service within the U.S. Navy during wartime.

[rotor]

In the present case this means troops will not be authorized to "detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping" the migrant caravan,

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Coast Guard routinely seize drugs from smugglers? The Coast Guard is a military force isn't it?

Although it is an armed service, the U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, is not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act but has explicit authority to enforce federal law. This is true even when the Coast Guard is operating as a service within the U.S. Navy during wartime.

So perhaps Trump needs to put the Coast Guard on our southern border.

[03Lightningrocks]

[philbo]

Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.

I do enjoy the ignore list advocates, especially as it separates the closed minds from the critical thinkers. Please feel free to return to the Ostrich position.

While you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.

Thank you for proving my point with an emotional outburst, devoid of evidence, that jumps straight to name calling. tRump couldn't have done it better himself. Give yourself a nice big pat on the back!

Perhaps TXHawk will show up and begin yet another post by misspelling ad hominem one more time.

[03Lightningrocks]

Darn. I missed the "last word". Gotta love the ignore list.

I do enjoy the ignore list advocates, especially as it separates the closed minds from the critical thinkers. Please feel free to return to the Ostrich position.

While you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.

Thank you for proving my point with an emotional outburst, devoid of evidence, that jumps straight to name calling. tRump couldn't have done it better himself. Give yourself a nice big pat on the back!

Perhaps TXHawk will show up and begin yet another post by misspelling ad hominem one more time.

The fact that you call a simple observation an emotional outburst proves my point.

[03Lightningrocks]

[G26ster]

[But remember, memes are the main expression of intellectually handicapped...

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
― George Orwell

"An intellectual is a man
who takes more words than necessary
to tell more than he knows."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Soccer riots kill at most tens.
Intellectuals' ideological riots sometimes kill millions."
- John McCarthy

"We have too many intellectuals who are afraid to use
the pistol of common sense."
- Samuel Fuller

"Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals."
- Edmund Wilson

It's the job of intellectuals and writers to cast doubt on perfection.
- Antonio Tabucchi