Yoo, rivkin: 14th amendment does grant birthright citizenship

[Salty]

Conservatives, by definition, do not want change whereas liberals desire change. You are asking for change and that is liberal.

Depends on what the issue is.




From this link

con·ser·va·tive
(kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
adj.1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

n.1. One favoring traditional views and values.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Depends on what the issue is.


From this link

con·ser·va·tive
(kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
adj.1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

n.1. One favoring traditional views and values.

Hey Salty. I would say your definition supports my comment very nicely.

 

[Revmitchell]

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, the author of the amendment said it applies to "all classes" except those foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers who are accredited to the Government of the United States.

Proves the intent of the author was that "All person born" on US soil except children born to ambassadors accredited to the US government are citizens.

Just as the Supreme Court has ruled no less than 3 times.

 

[Lewis]

Judge and University of Chicago lecturer Richard Posner has been named as the 20th century's most cited legal scholar in the US.

Judge Posner wrote the following in 2003:

"We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship...A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it...Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."
LINK

 

[Crabtownboy]

Judge and University of Chicago lecturer Richard Posner has been named as the 20th century's most cited legal scholar in the US.

Judge Posner wrote the following in 2003:

"We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship...A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it...Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."
LINK

Judge Posner has his right to his opinion just as all of us have that right. This does not mean he is right or wrong. There will never be an amendment such as he suggested. [That is my opinion.]

 

[Salty]

[ There will never be an amendment such as he suggested. [That is my opinion.] [/FONT][/SIZE]

Who would have ever thought there would have been an amendment to outlaw booze?

 

[righteousdude2]

WPE, I did not write the piece. I copied and pasted it and gave credit at the end. Your argument is with the person who wrote the article.

Oh, and I know enough to know I am not an intellectual. When I was 18 I knew everything. When I was 19 I realized, in a Physical Science clsss, there was something I did not know. It has been downhill since.

This is good .. you not knowing everything! :smilewinkgrin: This means the sources you copied and paste to this OP is more than likely wrought with errors too. I hope you would concede that as you have your own intellectual decline.

One question, are you twenty-years old? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Crabtownboy]

One question, are you twenty-years old? :smilewinkgrin:

I can't remember. :laugh:

 

[Lewis]

Judge Posner has his right to his opinion just as all of us have that right. This does not mean he is right or wrong. There will never be an amendment such as he suggested. [That is my opinion.]

Judge Posner is one of our greatest legal experts, so it's not as if his counsel on the matter is similar to just any other random person, as you seem to be saying.

What Judge Posner is saying is that there probably is no need for a constitutional amendment. His opinion is that Congress may "amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."

Congress would be amending a statute, something well within their authority. Of course President Obama would promptly veto such an amendment.