The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BrotherGecko**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
snip

We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.

The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.

When the 18th Amendment was passed, nobody was prosecuted for manufacturing or selling alcohol prior to ratification.

When the 12th Amendment was passed, it didn't undo actions made my people that wouldn't have been Vice Presidents.

When the 19th Amendment was passed, we didn't redo all previous elections because things would have been different if women could have voted.

When the 22nd Amendment was passed, we didn't repeal every law signed by FDR during his third and fourth term because he wouldn't have been president.

Point being, that if for some stupid reason birthright citizenship is repealed, it would only affect people born after an amendment to that effect is ratified.

There is no point in arguing that we suddenly have to display pedigree papers to prove that we are citizenships tracing back to before the 14th was ratified.

I good question to that is if anyone tried to apply retroactively any precedents made by those amendments and were they successful.

One could argue that if the 14th amendment disappeared all those that benefitted would be illegal and thus not subject to the rights of the Constitution. All of what you showed would still aplly to US citizens.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:

Repeal the 14th is one of those "dog whistles" everyone complains about, this time to the more rabid nativist elements of the US.
I am sure the surviving Comanches are all for it. "Out of my country white eyes!"

How big of a problem is it anyway?

I found a Pew survey done in 2008 that showed that 8% of children born in the US have at least one illegal immigrant as a parent, but even without the 14th those children would have received citizenship as long as one of those parents was a US citizen. The study didn't break those 8% down to determine how many had one illegal immigrant parent or two illegal immigrant parents.

**LordofHats**

Probably wouldn't have any effect (14th Amendment doesn't really have much connection to the laws that remove citizenship). What might happen is what caused the 14th Amendment in the first place; discrimination resulting in people being denied citizenship. Right now that doesn't really happen, since it's a de facto entitlement, but especially for hispanics the fight for legal recognition would become much harder given that there's already a fair bit of bias stacked against them as it is. They might end up subject to litmus tests "How'd you get here? Did you wait in line?" effecting them in ways it wouldn't effect other groups.

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:

When the 18th was repealed, was anyone that was charged or convicted for the manufacturing or possession of alcohol released from prison, had their records wiped clean, and any fines repaid to them?

Roy Olmstead... though not exactly what you were after, it's still someone who's record (eventually) got cleaned.

**whembly**

This case law right here is why asking the courts to address birthright citizenships is a waste of time. In short, the SCOTUS has already ruled:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html

Cliffnotes: There's two and ONLY two types of people who falls outside of the 14th... children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation (whut?)or children of diplomatic representatives of foreign states (makes sense).

Stick a fork in it ya'll.

**Tannhauser42**

Frazzled wrote:

And another issue.. Repeal the 14th and how much easier is it to strip citizenship from people (a real question on my part). I'd be leery that in a future time, undesirables of the moment could be kicked out.

Yep. In fact, such situations are still in living memory where such a thing probably would have been done. Japanese Americans in WWII, and any random person Joe McCarthy decided he didn't like during his little crusade. Civil rights leaders in the 60s. And so on.

**sebster**

If life begins at conception, then shouldn’t citizenship depend on where the child was conceived, not where it was born?

Anyhow, all I have to say on the issue is that I live in a country where citizenship doesn’t derive automatically from birth, and this leaves some assumptions that flow in to greater issues of race and country. We can talk all day about whether your country or mine has bigger problems with race, but I’ve got no doubt that when it comes to citizenship, who belongs, the US has a much healthier attitude than Australia. There is an ugly undercurrent to racial issues in Australia that immigrants aren’t really Australian, even second or third generation immigrants. I don’t see that idea in the US in anywhere near the same level. Even suggesting a repeal of the 14th opens the door to letting ideas about who is really an American start forming, and that can only lead to bad things.

**motyak**

It's an undercurrent out west? They're pretty accepting out there it seems...

**LordofHats**

children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation (whut?

If Canada invades Michigan, and two Canadian soldiers have a child while in occupied Michigan, then that child is not granted US citizenship.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I Even suggesting a repeal of the 14th opens the door to letting ideas about who is really an American start forming, and that can only lead to bad things.

Realistically, its completely outside the realm of possibility that the 14th would be repealed. Democrats would never go for it, if only because of the black caucus. The Republicans are too easy to paint as profoundly racist as it is, and no matter how much they like telling other people who they should blame for all their problems and how unamerican those people are against them, repealing the 14th is a bit too far even for them.

If anything, the 14th itself would be amended, not repealed, but I think the issue of 'birthright citizenship' is a nonstarter issue. It won't really do anything to curb the immigration issue, or offer any real solutions to what we do about illegals already here in the US. Besides, as I've said in other threads about immigration, both parties have spent years hedging bets on the immigration issue. They're both smart enough to realize that amnesty is the only real solution for those already here in the US. They're just waiting for it to become politically survivable to push for it.

**Verviedi**

Has this event been covered yet?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/alabamas-largest-abortion-clinic-reopens

-SNIP-

**Co'tor Shas**

Personally I think the abortion issue will be quite important to this election, as that is now the R's main moral issue to score points with highly religious voters now that SSM is legal.

**whembly**

With Trump's popularity... anyone getting this sense?

**d-usa**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I think the abortion issue will be quite important to this election, as that is now the R's main moral issue to score points with highly religious voters now that SSM is legal.

I wouldn't be surprised if Right to Die becomes the next divisive social issue this decade.

**jasper76**

IME, Trumps popularity is based on red meat promises that he can't possibly provide.

Specifically:

-Huge growth in the US manufacturing sector, and return of jobs US corporations have outsourced to other countries.
-Repeal of the 14th Amendment.

I've seen one of his speeches now, and to my surprise, once you get past the 'stupid dummy' part of them, his message is largely optimistic as relates to jobs. "Morning in America" stuff that is pushing people's Reagan button.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I think the abortion issue will be quite important to this election, as that is now the R's main moral issue to score points with highly religious voters now that SSM is legal.

I wouldn't be surprised if Right to Die becomes the next divisive social issue this decade.

I get a giggle by that term. The Right to Die is probably the only universal, "natural" human right . Euthanasia is a better term, I guess maybe it's to closely associated to animal euthanasia...I'm not sure when that phrase became popular, but back in the Kervorkian days, the issue was called euthanasia, or somwtimes "assisted suicide"

**Grey Templar**

jasper76 wrote:
IME, Trumps popularity is based on red meat promises that he can't possibly provide.

Obama rode the exact same wave.

**jasper76**

Grey Templar wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
IME, Trumps popularity is based on red meat promises that he can't possibly provide.

Obama rode the exact same wave.

But Obama actually could have passed universal healthcare. He caved into he insurance lobby, and perhaps he thought the GOP would actually compromise. He got zero support from Republicans on the ACA just like he would have got zero support for the far-preferable single payer system he ran on. Big let down. All the cards were in place, but he wouldn't pull the trigger.

**Grey Templar**

No, he couldn't do any such thing. Only Congress could do that. And Obamacare only got passed because congress went along with it at the time. The President has no power to create legislation, only to suggest legislation to congress and then sign/not sign whatever lands on his desk.

All of Trump's promises would only require the same thing, except for the 14th amendment(but thats only 1 thing).

**jasper76**

Grey Templar wrote:
No, he couldn't do any such thing. Only Congress could do that. And Obamacare only got passed because congress went along with it at the time. The President has no power to create legislation, only to suggest legislation to congress and then sign/not sign whatever lands on his desk.

Conceded, although Obama won with a clear mandate on the issue of universal health care, and typically a friendly Congress, which Obama had at the time, will attempt to enact such policies after a presidential election. But for reasons I suppose are debatable, he abandoned the position he was originally elected on.

**whembly**

No... it wasn't a clear mandate.

If it were... then, they wouldn't have had such a hard time passing the PPACA.

**Grey Templar**

Especially since so many people didn't know what was even in it.

**BrotherGecko**

A lot of people watch FoxNews only, believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ that is supplying his allies ISIS, created a convert military operation in the Southwest to conquer the "real" Americans and instill martial law.

You can put out the message but its up to people to educate themselves and the media to not alter it to push their agenda.

**CptJake**

I would love to see videos from Fox News spreading the Jade Helm conspiracy theory. I recall Megyn Kelly and the group on The Five mocking the conspiracy theorists.

You may want to educate yourself on 'the media' and figure out who actually says what.

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
No... it wasn't a clear mandate.

If it were... then, they wouldn't have had such a hard time passing the PPACA.

He won by almost 10,000,000 popular votes, and 68% of electoral votes.

But whatever, no need to argue semantics over the word mandate. My point was he ran on universal healthcare, and won by a wide, indisputable, and undisbuted margin, and afterwards abandoned the position he ran on, when he really didn't need to.

**Tannhauser42**

Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?

Anyway 90 years old, and still trying to help people. He has certainly worked a good shift.

**jasper76**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?

Anyway 90 years old, and still trying to help people. He has certainly worked a good shift.

One can only hope that all candidates will do nothing to politicize this sad news. I'm thinking everybody but Trump has the class and decency to leave that one alone, outside of offering their sympathies.

**BrotherGecko**

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/paranoia-rama-obama-launches-race-war-military-prepares-jade-helm-false-flag-pscyho-coup

Not on air but through the radio they support the fear.

**Ouze**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?

I doubt it. There's lots of room for backlash, and to what gain? There is no attack that I can conceive of that gives a boost in the polls to any meaningful segment of the electorate.

**CptJake**

BrotherGecko wrote:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/paranoia-rama-obama-launches-race-war-military-prepares-jade-helm-false-flag-pscyho-coup

Not on air but through the radio they support the fear.

You'll have to point out where on that site there is something attributable to Fox News claiming Jade Helm was a take over plot.

All I see is:

4) Jade Helm 15 Takeover

Now that the race war is here, it’s only a matter of time before Obama declares martial law, and according to some right-wing observers, the upcoming Jade Helm 15 military drill is practice for a military takeover that will include forcing political prisoners into cattle cars and shipping them off to Wal-Mart FEMA camps.

As Stewart Rhodes of the radical Oath Keepers explains, the exercise is meant to “condition the public” and military service members to go along with a military coup, or at least become too afraid to rise against it.

One post on the Oath Keepers website adds: “It strikes many people as a portentous government plan, a pre-fabricated and pre-constructed umbrella under which a black op by the Deep State’s compartmentalized agencies could possibly ‘Go Live’ in a fantastic sort of Shock and Awe False Flag psycho-coup to jar the public mind of America through fear into acceptance of some nefarious policy the government desired, such as the establishment of Martial Law and the complete loss of individual liberty and our Constitution. To do that, the public mind must be conditioned first. That is part of what is behind the Special Operation Command’s Jade Helm 15.”

And as far as i can tell Rhodes is not a Fox News guy.

**BrotherGecko**

Beck is a doomsayer.

I don't even know what why I'm attempting to argue with with you as I wasn't trying to imply Fox news is jade helm source. I was implying that people who only watch Foxnews tend to be pretty damn misinformed (there are actual studies on this).

**CptJake**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Beck is a doomsayer.

I don't even know what why I'm attempting to argue with with you as I wasn't trying to imply Fox news is jade helm source. I was implying that people who only watch Foxnews tend to be pretty damn misinformed (there are actual studies on this).

Sure as heck seems like you were when you posted:

A lot of people watch FoxNews only, believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ that is supplying his allies ISIS, created a convert military operation in the Southwest to conquer the "real" Americans and instill martial law.

You can put out the message but its up to people to educate themselves and the media to not alter it to push their agenda.

I honestly read that as you saying Fox was spreading those conspiracy theories. If they ONLY watch Fox News, and believe those theories, how else would you say they get those beliefs if not from Fox?