Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Leftists HATE Facts Part II: Trump "Overrides" the Constituion By Executive Order!

On a post I read here Leftists went insane as usual over "threats" that your President Trump was about to "ooverride the Comstitution" by executive order. Of course facts never being their best quality when I asked what exactly that meant they replied President Trump was going got "repeal" the 14th Amendment by executive order and violate the Constitution.

Sigh...


Being a soon to be European I am amazed how little American history must be taught anymore to Americans while we in the Philippines had MANDATORY classes in the subject. The author of that post did not know your Constitution was passed before your Bill of Rightd and that they are separate documents but wrote the impeachable "crime" President Trump was about to commit was against the 14th Amendment. Of course he did not read or bother to reseach what exactly President Trump intended nor anyone else who posted there excepto yo. It took 10 minutes.

President Trump (doesn't it just drive Leftiies CRAZY when I use his proper title?) wants to ban birthright citizenship which he says correctly is not protevted by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was wrtten to enfranchise Black-Americans who the Democrats wanted to deny full rights as Americans - like voting their former slave-owners asses out of office. Since then it has been interpreted that ANY child born in the United States is an Amerocan citizen even if the parents are not. The result is what I saw advertised in the Philippines and is much bigger in China - birthright tourism...a pregnant woman from outside the USA comes to the United States and births her child there. In China agents provide complete services....doctors, lawyers, a place to stay and everything for about 15-20,000 USD. This means American CITIZENS are actually paying for the children of NON-CITIZENS (who also stay in the USA of course...hear all that "we cant seprate families" trash from Democrats? Thats what that is really about!). It also means that IF before 9/11 Osama bin Laden had made sure each of his wives gave birth here all the children of Osama including his son who took over when daddy was killed would have been US citizens.

Is THAT what the 14th Amendment was all about?

If you think "yes' then here are the words of the man who wrote the "citiznship clause" in the 14th Amendment -

"This will not, OF COURSE, include persons born in the Unted States who are foreigners, aliens who beling to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Sen.Jacob Howard, Republican

The words 'of course" show that every REASONABLE and INTELLIGENT person knew that. Unfortunately he never met a modern Leftist.

What did Democrats used to think about this issue? How about this -

"If being an illegal alien wasn't already easy enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No SANE country would do that, right? Guess again!"

Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat

The Democrats now, of course are all against this. Their entire purpose is and always has to gain and hold on to power and are willing to do anything - from requiring US citizens to pay for the services to their children so their parents will from gratitude for allowing them to scam the system vote them it office to treason against the United States to make it so.

In fact what Presdient Trump proposes is RETURN the 14th Amendment to its ORIGINAL meaning. Pity Mr. STOut who accused me of being a "foreigner" who "wanted to overthtow our constituion" didn't have the time to find that out ... okay it really took me 30 minutes to do.


BTW...isnt someone referring to me as "a foriegner who wants to overthrow our constituiton" ironic when I am the one arguing for the United States to PROTECT its citizenship rights? Oh well I only do what Putin pays me to do - another idiotic accusation I have read.

Oh... and isn't calling me a "foreigner" in a negative way kinda...I dunno...racist?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
OggggO · 36-40, M
Got any sources for those statements?
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@OggggO Unlike you, always. Let me help you...try Googling "Citizenship clause - 14th Amendment - Sen Jacob Howard"...that will get you started.

And since you apparently never attended a real university learning do research on your own will be good for you. You might actually learn something though of course that would require an open mind...or, in your case, a mind.
OggggO · 36-40, M
@Abrienda Do you require an explanation of the burden of proof?
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@OggggO Is this a legal matter? She gave you the source, why don't you research it and come back with a substantive question instead of being a smug prick?
OggggO · 36-40, M
@SumKindaMunster No, she didn't give the source, she just told me to google it. Burden of proof applies in all debates over matters of fact.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@OggggO Heres what I think.

I think you are looking for any angle to post some sort of refutation, instead of actually doing the research and responding with any sort of substance.

This ain't the Harvard debate team slippery, she gave you the info, so do the work and come up with a rebuttal or get lost.

I dont see you post your sources on the shit you post.
This message was deleted by its author.
OggggO · 36-40, M
@unearthed And looking at that site, it's a heavily slanted source dedicated to forcing it's own interpretation, rather than stating the facts. Hence why the burden of proof is important. I could find any number of [i]bad[/i] sources for any position given to me, but all that matters is the person making the claim has a [i]good[/i] one to support their stance. The part you read did not say "foreigners, aliens, [b]or[/b] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States", as such, lacking a conjunction, that most clearly appears to be not a listing, but a phrase "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" interrupted by an appositive "aliens". In other words, he meant exactly what the text says, foreigners who are not under the jurisdiction of the US, most likely because of diplomatic immunity, do not get to have their children become citizens, but everyone else does.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@unearthed Thank you and yes...just as I quoted. Unlike others here I don't make things up and know the difference between facts and opinions.
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by its author.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@unearthed Its intentional...he simply dosen't want to see what will prove him wrong...again.
OggggO · 36-40, M
@unearthed Then they should have worded the actual amendment more narrowly. The law is what is written, not what is in men's heads.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@OggggO Which if you had you would have seen I was right and could have then quietly crawlled back under your rock without making an even bigger fool of yourself than usual.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@OggggO Yes...when will YOU realize that?
OggggO · 36-40, M
@Abrienda A person born in the USA, and who is not the child of individuals exempt from the jurisdiction of the United States, is themselves not exempt from the jurisdiction of the United States. Being born in the country and subject to it's jurisdiction, they are therefore citizens, regardless of who specifically their parents were. Which is exactly what it says in the amendment.