Trump will clean house

[kevin kiernan]

Crooked politicians must be held accountable for the crimes they have done. Trump is the only one who will do it. To elect a POTUS who will not prioritize fixing our criminal political system will not be good enough for me.We will not get another one like Trump ,who will bitch slap the evil out of Washington politics..No one can deny that Trump is crazy enough to do it. But he needs us to want it fixed. He can not stand alone..This is that time in history. The time that many have hoped. Turn your back on this opportunity,and we are done. THAT IS THE TRUTH OF IT.

[M]

Thomas,

I fully agree that we need to reinstate States Rights over Federal Rights and take back the power stolen from the people by the 14th Amendment. See this site for a lot of information; http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/  We need to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments to flip the Constitution back to it's original intent of chaining the powers of the Federal Government and reinstituting the built in checks and balances the 14th negated with the three words "No State Shall" . Although most liberals would say the 14th is necessary because it guarantees Birthright Citizenship, a close examination of explanations of intent written by politicians of that era;

Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The 14th gives Congress the express right to determine what to enforce by enactment of legislation and boy oh boy did the Democrats seize on that to allow for anchor babies.

 

[jack ludwig]

M you cannot be a foreigner if you were born in the United States as the 14th amendment clearly states. Senator Edward Cowan position is not correct also only the parents can have an allegiance to their home country the child has no allegiance to the parents home country unless they claim such allegiance. A new born cannot make such a decision and the home country cannot claim rights to the child only the parent can claim the child and if the parents return to their home country before the child becomes of legal age I would suggest the parents would have the right to claim the child and the child would lose its citizenship to America.

[M]

Kinda re read that Jack, especially the definition about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ,  it speaks to children of foreign parents that owe allegiance to their foreign government and that is specifically what the illegal immigrants are. therefore their children are not American Citizens by birth. When that was written there were no laws about immigration nor were there quotas. Only the Democrats actions in the 1965 act allows Anchor babies. Congress has the authority to modify that act and they should.

[jack ludwig]

M the 14th Amendment reads, 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 State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Where does it say it speaks to foreign parents of the new born? If it was meant to say that it would state in the amendment no child born to non citizens of the United States can be a naturalized citizen. It doesn't and the amendment is very clear and has stood the test of the courts for more than 148 years. It is time we move on to issues that are more meaningful. 

[M]

Jack,

This is the singularly most meaningful issue we face today because it is the issue that turned the constitution on it's head and stripped the power from the people and the States as was intended by the Founders with the three toxic words "NO STATE SHALL" and wrongfully gave it to the Federal Government which the Constitution was supposed to curtail power to.

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans,  its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants. To fully understand the original intent we must return to the time frame and common usage prevalent then if we are to interpret it properly.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

States Rights is long gone; the average voter not even knowing what it means!

Turning the clock back requires a powerful consensus led by a strong man. Instead we are highly factionalized and led by buffoons.

Most critically, having lost the vision of our Founders, their attributes no longer flow thru our veins as a 20 second sound bite from any member of the Congressional assholery will clearly demonstrate.

We are left w/hopes and wishes.

By 1600, the French Elites among them the RC Church, the Monarchy, the Nobles and the Military; had turned their back on the other 99%; the peasants and workers. Then in 1789, the former paid the price.

Santayana correctly asserted that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.   

[jack ludwig]

getting anything done in government requires a strong consensus, as it should be in a democracy! However the consensus is still required but much smaller in numbers because half the people could care less about government policy. A mistake is measured in the eyes of the interpreter and history is recorded through the prism of those who record it.

[M]

Jack,

Like all the Progressives you keep refering to the U.S. as a Democracy.We are not a Democracy. That misnomer has been deliberately planted in our brains for what ever nefarious purpose and usage the Socialistic/Progressives led by the Elites want it to be at any given time. 

In simple fact, we are a Republic. A Constitutional Republic that uses democratic principles which are supposed to be constrained by our Written Constitution, and any laws ,regulations,etc.  et.al. that do not submit to what is within the four corners of that Constitution are invalid by overriding force of Constitutional Law.

[jack ludwig]

Yes M I understand we are a Republic a representative form of governing using a constitution as its guiding principle. However, how are our representatives elected and how are laws made and enforced, by using the democratic process within the guidelines of the constitution. We may be called a republic but it is the will of the people, democracy, that determine how we will be governed. Liberals rely on the democracy side of the description  to push their agenda and conservatives rely on the their interpretation of the restrictions in the constitution to push their agenda. Neither is wrong but the constitution was not written to give ordinary citizens or legislators the rights to make those decisions.

[M]

Jack,

You are making the classic mistake that the Liberals have brain washed the public to make. Yes it does depend on the will of the people in how they are governed, but in a constitutional Republic both the people and the Government must conform to the Restrictions of the Constitution parameters, whereas a Democracy will bend to the will of 50%+1 of the people and has no limits on what the government or People decide they want, In effect they can legislate themselves bread and circuses until the Democracy collapses into Anarchy, and the Anarchy collapses into Dictatorship.

Due to the last 100 years of Progressivism, and the concept that the US is a Democracy,we are going headlong into anarchy because we as a people have been fooled into believing we are a Democracy instead of a Republic. That caveat about Democracy has been proven true time and Time again since the ancient greeks came up with the concept of a Democracy.

[M]

Thomas,

To reinstitute States Rights and return the original checks and balances to the Constitution we need to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Doing so harms nothing else, changes nothing else, and only strips the Stolen power from the Federal Government and gives it back to it's rightful owners, The People and the States.

[Hankelvis]

..and when I get back in office, Hillary and the rest of you will bow down to me as supreme master!