To be indicted on multiple charges all just because he has itchy fingers.
Never has
The man has built his career by using the law as a weapon. He's been found guilty in civil court TWICE for fucking tax fraud. You're a fool to think Trump is unable to protect himself or that he requires your assistance. Google: "Donald Trump Public Record" and you'll find everything you need to know about Diaper Boy.
(no message)
(no message)
an Irish person's cooter.
Calling.
In a moment of weakness I couldn't resist the play on words.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Posted as a reminder that these people, for all their bleating about the constitution, are willing to through it out the window whenever it serves the Dear Leader.
....but THAT would be Nazi-esque. I don't believe there's any way it would happen.
Don't forget that some Lefties have suggested that Trump be overthrown by the military.
Not sure either extreme is being helpful here.
[Edit: By the way, I just looked up Hannity's quote. He was agreeing with a caller. It's not like he had an entire segment scripted to push this concept. He didn't suggest it; a caller did; and he was basically like, "Yeah!" Don't get me wrong, that's a stupid idea, and it was foolish of him to pile on what the caller was suggesting.]
(no message)
Then he is as activist as any lib.
(no message)
There is no text to hang a hat on when you are talking about a penumbra of implied rights.
The birthright citizenship issue comes down to an interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" ... modern vs. original. Just like the Second Amendment comes down to the meanings of "regulated" and "militia" ... modern meanings vs. original meanings. I honestly haven't explored the birthright citizenship issue as fully, so I'm not ready to commit to an interpretive basis (although the Left can't pretend that it isn't in the power of SCOTUS to decide that, when SCOTUS would be using Lefty constitional theory to get there...if the Constitution is a living breathing document as they say, they can't complain when an activist court breathes a way they don't like). I will say that birthright citizenship has served its purpose, and I would support a constitutional amendment to make citizenship a blood right, not a location of birth right. Again, I haven't thought it all through, but it seems that blood citizenship is a more reasonable approach given modern realities of people moving around. In many countries, our state department employees spend most of their time trying to keep pregnant mothers from booking tickets to the US. Seems like a waste of resources.
You continue to crack me up by entertaining a “modern” interpretation of plain language which is what you decry the libs doing all the time.
They can't bitch when their position backfires on them. I predicted that all along. But, they wanted more power to do good things, and the constitution was holding them back. Yeah, dumbshits, it was holding everyone back, and when you remove the power limitations, anyone can get more power. If we are going to have a more powerful government (much to my disappointment), it might as well do good things as I define it, not as they define it. Thus, politics becomes the rule of the day.
"The plain language of the amendment..." They laugh at that when they want to use the power of government to put their favored policies in place.
You are them.
If I have a chance, I would move us back. I just don't think I have the power to do that. I think they have moved our nation into the next phase of its existence, and you just haven't noticed it yet. I hope I'm wrong; I hope you are right. In the mean time, it turns out that I'm just some suburban guy raising a family. All I can do is live my life, vote, raise my kids, and post on the internet, and cheer for the Irish. Why shouldn't I keep good cheer about things I cannot control?
You never fail to impress on this topic.
(no message)