Theseus

Oct. 30, 2018 / 9:23 PM EDT By Danny Cevallos President Donald Trump says he wants to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil. Most citizens are taught early in their education that birthright citizenship is an immutable, undisputed right, explicitly granted by the Constitution. But, it turns out, birthright citizenship may not be a constitutional right. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — enacted in 1868 — reads "(a)ll 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."OCT. 30, 201802:20 If the clause simply omitted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then there would likely be no debate, and birthright citizenship would be unassailable absent a constitutional amendment. But the "subject to the jurisdiction" language has created a lot of debate over the years. To some scholars, birthright citizenship has been the result of an accidental interpretation of the Constitution, federal law and Supreme Court precedent — an error that they believe can be corrected without Constitutional amendment. Shortly after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in 1872 had an opportunity to interpret it in the "Slaughterhouse Cases," observing that the amendment's "main purpose was to establish the citizenship of" African-Americans. It also concludedthat "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude the children of "ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States." The argument goes: If these categories of people were not "subject to the jurisdiction" then it follows that babies born of illegal immigrants have even less claim to citizenship. But then, in 1898, the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States" was entitled to citizenship based on his birth on American soil. This case, together with the clear meaning of every other part of the Citizenship Clause — except for that tricky "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part — form the bulk of the strongest arguments for birthright citizenship: To supporters, it's in the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court appears to have squarely decided the issue. But maybe it didn't. The Wong Kim Ark case did not actually decide whether children of illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship — only children of immigrant parents with "permanent domicile" in the United States. Some scholars go further and argue that the Wong Kim Ark decision is completely erroneous, and based on a mistaken interpretation of the 14th Amendment — a mistake that has caused a major constitutional misunderstanding that persists to this day. Those against birthright citizenship ultimately conclude that while the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause has been misapplied, it was always intended to grant citizenship only to people who are born here and whose parents are not foreign subjects. To them, "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is not just some meaningless phrase, because there is a presumption that laws and the Constitution do not contain surplus or meaningless words. For the same reason that children of diplomats and invading armies would not be citizens, children of illegal immigrants should not be either. All of these children are — by this interpretation — not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those who support birthright citizenship have a more straightforward argument. Whatever "subject to the jurisdiction" ultimately means, it doesn't change the rest of the language of the Citizenship Clause. If that vexing phrase has any limiting meaning, it just refers to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States —just as someone who commits crimes in interstate commerce is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government. Whichever side is right, there's a compelling historical — if not legal — argument for not amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship. The Constitution has been amended to expand rights and increase protections. It is rarely amended to remove existing rights. Arguably, the one time that has occurred in our history was the 18th Amendment, which imposed a federal criminal prohibition on alcohol. By any measure, that was ultimately a spectacularly unsuccessful amendment.

The map is wrong as it does show any Iranian militia controlled territory.

The fourteenth admendment states: The consternation in the fourteenth amendment is the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in paragraph 1 section 1 to which the SCOTUS has never adjudicated. Whether a legal or illegal immigrant gives birth in the country it has been assumed, since ratification, that this means anyone who is born in this country is automatically a citizen o the USA. However, the consternation rises in the form of whether the heavily debated clause in section 1 paragraph 1 refers only to those permanent residents who are subject to the US Code of Conduct before giving birth. This can be one of the foundations as to the left's wanting to give everyone who places a foot on US soil to be given unabated Constitutional rights, even if they are a citizen of another country and have no intention of becoming a citizen in this country. Whether you are for or against, Trump by espousing he can prevent anchor babies from happening by EO will force the SCOTUS to rule on this clause as the trap for adjudication has been set. Once again the nevertrumpers and left have walked lockstep into the trap and are about to spring something they do not want to do which is to force a ruling by SCOTUS on this very hotly debated clause by Constitutionalists. If the left had any logic instead of going the route of the activist judges and because the POTUS created an EO, the next president on the left should just rescind the EO as has been shown by Trump. However, expect there to be judicial challenges when this is done. And again, it will end up in the hands of SCOTUS. The left has no choice but to take this to SCOTUS to get a judicial opinion. Of course, there is a legislative outcome but Congress critters are too cowardly to pen their names to any type of immigration policy. Well played Trump. WIn.

The final review refers to the 3-year 2016 SBA with the IMF. Iraq and the IMF agreed to three reviews in which would review the benchmarks set forth in the plan. The final review is referring to this third review by the IMF. In December of 2017, the third review process was started and the previous reviews had been taking place in August with a final report out in November of the same year. However, since the SBA is 3 years, the completion of the time is in May/June 2019, this final review may not occur in November but towards the end of the SBA. In addition, since the GOI election process took far longer than most anticipated, this final review may also be postponed. Whether there is a delay has not been disclosed. Iraq has had previous SBA's with the IMF, most notably in 2009 and lasting until 2012.

Good thing I didn't make a QUANTUM LEAP, I might be in trouble with Scott Bakkula for that.

SInce they have not been too clear as to whether it be a delete the zeroes from the currency, the exchange or both, the popular opinion rests with the latter.The projec would delete the zeroes from the currency and the exchange rate at the same time which is the reason for the lower denoms. This theory also goes on to state that this will bring Iraq's currency in line with other national currencies in denoms such as 100,s 50s, 20s, 10s, 5s and 1s. This would also include coinage of the same variety the major nations have as well. As always it remains to be seen what they do. Considering they said the project would take 2 years to implement this also could mean several things such as a low intro rate and float from there via the market, a low intro rate and a CBI managed float to the target value, an on par rate with the dollar and either a managed float or a market float, or a greater than the rate of the dollar and either a managed float or a market float. IN whatever outcome occurs the delete the zeroes project will more than likely be a removal from the exchange rate as if they only remove the zeroes from the currency they don't increase their purchasing power but only weaken it significantly both in the minds of the Iraqi and in the minds of the rest of the world. The dinar must do better in the end and my belief is that means better than the dollar as it is their benchmark.

This man thinks his supporters are idiots and will believe everything that comes out of his mouth He mocks them as simpletons and uneducated, void of critical thinking skills. Not a single lawmaker had heard of his "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period". proposed healthcare plan until Obama mentioned it to the cameras. He will say and do anything to hedge his bets for the midterms....including lying to the middle class by dangling his mediocre knowledge on healthcare in front of them.

Budget important laws IMF Final review Iraq free to RV after that Iraq is already international save their curencyu. They have international banking, they trade (import and export) internationally and they have international investments and investors. They need more investors though. If the delete the zeros project takes them two years, the TV will be a ramp up process and may not reach a one to one until the process is complete if they manage the float.

I spent a good 3 to 5 years debating muslims where they were not afraid to say what was on their minds. I spent six months inflitrating what people would call moderate muslims and radicals hijacked islam. No such thing as a moderate muslim. As when there are no infidels around they are no longer moderate and become the radicalized muslims the west claims have hijacked islam. I was there when islamaphobe became a word because i was accused of it several times. I was one of a few who was written about in the Egyptian newspaper about how we were all given fatwahs to take our heads. You may have had boots on the ground but i got to see the vile filth that lay deeper than any infidel should ever underground. My analysis is spot on because I have learned islam from apostates, copts and others who live under their cowardly rule.

They hate the word "Christ" and they believe in him just not the same way most believe in him. First, they changed the name of Jesus to Isa. THe word ISa does not exist in any language not even quariashi. Second, their so-called prophet never existed as the first mention of him occurs some 60 years after his alleged death. Even the Quran is a work of fiction as the works in Istanbul don't match the never-changing word of shmallah. In the 1990's carbon dating on these Qurans and were found not to be of the time period in which they said they were written. The first time the mention of either occurs during the caliphate of Ibn al-Malick which is the third Caliphate in the 8th century almost 200 years after the death of their so-called prophet. Third, the author of the Quran says they replaced Isa (Jesus) with a body double and crucified the body double. Lastly, they believe the sister of Moses is that very Mother Mary which had given birth to Jesus. The Quran never completes a story except in one case. The Quran is nothing more than stolen scripts from Joos and Christians as are the SUnnahs and Hadiths. While the Bible was written by people who witnessed or was told by people who witnessed the events, the Quran was written through oral tradition put to written word some 200 years after the death of their so-called profit. Thus the Quran is from the word of people who never witnessed what happened rendering it not the word of their god. MErry Christmas!

because I wasn't wearing my eyeglasses and the six looked like an 8. Yeah, I will stick with that story.

You are conflating an agreement (the agreement between Baghdad and Erbil, aka HCA) with the more complex HCL. The agreement is not the HCL as the agreement is considered part of but not the entirety of the HCL.

In Iraq, it means a holiday follows.

I hear MtnGoat, TNTony, and about a dozen more so-called gurus say exactly the same thing. Are they not positive too? What do we say about them? Exactly. Less zombification and more logical thinking needed.

There is hopium and then there is this, You have to pass the draft into law before you can implement the law. Come on use common sense. Which of the four drafts have they passed into law are they implementing? Do tell. They split one of the drafts into three parts and created the new National Oil Company. That they passed and implemented which is all of the drafts. So tell us how they are implementing something they havent even passed into law. The IC says they have spread the sales but they havent even decided that far in advance yet or it would have been shouted across the land. Common sense goes a long way. Hope is a feeling that will not put food on the table. I hope I had a 64 ounce medium rare ribeye steak. Yep still hungry.

Then you missed the unhighlighted part of the above article. I added the red below. They are throwing out all of the drafts up to this point and starting from scratch on the HCL if they so choose to introduce the new law. This does not smell like they will be implementing the HCL anytime or close to "soon". Third: Federal oil and gas law There are at least four drafts of this law, all of which have become outdated and can not be implemented. Therefore, the next government has two alternatives: either the failure to introduce the law or introduce a new draft law is completely different and radical than any of the old versions of the law. ****If the second alternative is chosen, the 10-year experience with the above four formulas suggests that this requires intensive, complex and long-term efforts and may not work in the end.****

...

These 11 people died in the Capitol Building: 1. John Quincy Adams - Collapsed at his desk after voting No in 1848. Died two days later. Soon to be President Abraham Lincoln served as a Pallbearer. Note Adams is one of only two Presidents to return to Congress after serving their presidential term. 2. Morris Michael Edelstein - DIed, June 4, 1941, from a fatal heart attack in the House Cloakroom after giving a speech on the floor. He was Jewish and his final speech was given after an antisemitic speech which accused the International Jewish community of harassing the President into going into WWII. 3. Henry WIlson, November 22, 1875, 18th Vice President and Mass. Senator. IN 1873 Wilson suffered a major stroke. He was able to return to Washington. In November, he found himself paralyzed while taking a bath. He was taken to his office in the Capitol Building where he died days later. 4. John Lenthall - 1882, Was killed during construction. Is said to have cursed the Capital Building and anytime construction is done on the Capital Building the curse is brought up. He was a noted shipbuilder and was working as Clerk of Works to the architect Benjamin Latrobe at the time of his death. 5. Thomas Bouldin - Two-term VA representative died on Feb 11, 1934, after being called back when another HOuse member died. Bouldin spoke a few sentences and then collapsed. He was pronounced dead on the floor. 6. William Preston Taulbee - 2 term KY Rep turned lobbyist was shot by Charles Kincaid on a marble staircase in Feb 1890. Taulbee died 11 days after being shot. Some say his blood stain still exists on the marble staircase. 7. Edward Everett Elsick died in June 1932 after giving a speech. He was a Democrat Rep from TN. His wife replaced him and became TN's first Congresswoman. 8. Unknown Union Soldier - In 1862 the Capitol Building was turned into a Civil War Hospital with 1,000 cots set up in Statuary Hall for Union Soldiers. At least one soldier that died has never left the saying goes.\ 9. Augustus Hill Garland - When the Supreme Court was still housed in the Capitol Building, Garland argued a case before the SCOTUS and suffered a stroke. He died in a nearby office a few hours later. 10. & 11 Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson both died from their gunshot wounds when Russell Eugene Weston Jr. entered the Capitol building and ran towards House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's office. Chestnut was shot when Weston entered the building and Gibson was shot in an exchange of fire with Weston. Weston was injured in the exchange allowing him to be apprehended.

Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend. -Albert Camus

Was her name Peggy?

Iraq is always behind on payments. Iraq is going to RV on such and such day but it won't take until three months later. Pay your arrears Iraq so I can take my rear on vacation.

Then you need to hunt down about 500 million people. What jg1 said is SOP for Sharia law. Case in point, in Africa a pregnant woman had her stoning delayed because she was pregnant and it was determined the unborn baby was innocent. After she gave birth she was stoned. In Iran, women have been stoned and hung. I recall of a woman who was hung from a street lamp post because the judge merely determined she had a "sharp tongue". In the KSA, crucifixion is still practiced. What you and I think is barbaric and to have stopped thousands of years ago is still being practiced in the 21st century. Just think it was not until the 1980's (30 years ago) that the KSA still taught the world was draped by mountains and was flat all because that is what it said in their book. Just remember that according to these people women are property just like a field and are the spoils of war. Just ask Germans and Swiss, women in London etc. about how they are the spoils of an invasion disguised as mass immigration. A woman who commits a crime in which death is prescribed she has lost all semblance of being a woman and human according to this filth. When that happens she can the be raped like a goat and put down afterward. Just ask the Shah of Iran who says its okay to sleep with a youngin at the ripe ole age of 1 year old. Toothpick or toothbrush, my behind!

CNBC? Okay, say no more. The parrot is only sleeping. Say no more.

You just don't get it, do you?, Obummer sucked worst recovery of a prez ever. Trump is winning. Enjoy the ride. The next demoRat prez will come in and be worse than Obummer. The recession of 2000's started with Clinton. Oops did I say that out loud. Yeah Clinton used Social Security funds to drum up phony numbers which Bush Jr. found out by August of his first year. Attention was taken away from that when 9/11 happened. Revisionist history will do you no good.