Kagan Confirmed, five Republicans vote for her

[nw_hunter]

Keep voting for a 3rd party and split the conservative and moderate vote, and we end up with liberals and democrats every time.  At least keep it moving to the right, or try, or try to stay middle until we can get it to the right. 

I voted for the only true conservative in the primary election. (Paul) Can you say that?
After the choice of the R N C was elected to run, I voted for a conservative,he just didn't have an R in front of his name. Truth is, the only time a main stream Republican candidate is conservative, is when they are running for office. Keep on voting for that kind of conservative person until a true one  comes along! Just don't hold your breath! He will show someday.

What's that old saying?............."Oh Yea" (When Hell Freezes Over)

[Dee]

Let me see if I've got this straight nw_hunter? I vote for a Republican liberal, or moderate, and he's gonna appoint a strict Constitutionalists Supreme Court Judge, and vote Pro Constitution and Bill of Rights? When did that rule go into effect? This will keep it moving to the right, or at least keep it in the middle where it is now?
What if I don't like it where it is now? Which by the way I don't. This type of voting is what is giving MY RIGHTS away, a few at a time, and I'm supposed to support that? I think not. Their voting philosophy hasn't worked in the past, but they think it will in the future?

[nw_hunter]

Let me see if I've got this straight nw_hunter? I vote for a Republican liberal, or moderate, and he's gonna appoint a strict Constitutionalists Supreme Court Judge, and vote Pro Constitution and Bill of Rights? When did that rule go into effect? This will keep it moving to the right, or at least keep it in the middle where it is now?
What if I don't like it where it is now? Which by the way I don't. This type of voting is what is giving MY RIGHTS away, a few at a time, and I'm supposed to support that? I think not. Their voting philosophy hasn't worked in the past, but they think it will in the future?

Their G Grand kids will still be waiting.

[nw_hunter]

nw-hunter....good post #31...there really isn't any real escape from the tyranny...in the end...but for one or two things...

However, I've been doing a little research on RP....seems he voted for 'most favorable trade' status for China twice and also voted for immigrant amnesty.  Can you confirm..?


..TM7

Two things I have disagreed with Paul on in the past was Immigration and some of his views on Fair trade.

He has changed his outlook on Immigration since the 80's



In 1988, while running as the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul said, "there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." He was asked about this quote on Meet the Press during his second presidential run.

Paul explained:

"During that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous."

Today, when an illegal immigrant sneaks across the border and has a child, that child is automatically granted all the rights and privileges of any other US citizen, including access to social welfare programs such as food stamps, housing benefits, free education and medical care. Ron Paul opposes birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants as is permitted under the 14th Amendment.

Paul introduced House Joint Resolution 46 in an attempt to begin the process of changing the 14th Amendment, with the following explanation:

"As long as illegal immigrants know that their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America."

Paul's final recommendation for dealing with the immigration problem is to end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. He said,

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas doesn't mince words. On the subject of illegal immigration he said emphatically, "One important solution is better enforcement of the laws we've got - which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported."

He makes clear his position that the responsibility of immigration enforcement is the job of the President, not the Congress.

[Dixie Dude]

I think the last true conservative as far as immigration is concerned is Eiesenhower.  He had about 2,000,000 illegal Mexicans rounded up and sent 400 miles inside Mexico by bus or via ship on the coast and dumped.  All legal immigration is is verifying the person isn't deseased or a criminal.  Some just can't wait the 4-6 months to cross the border waiting to get their green cards.  I also think that there should be NO Anchor babies with the illegals.  Illegal plus baby goes back. 

[Redhawk1]

You can't fix STUPID, but we can vote them out!

[powderman]

I also think that there should be NO Anchor babies with the illegals.  Illegal plus baby goes back. 



YEP. WAAAAYYYY back, not just accross the border. POWDERMAN. 

[Redhawk1]

I also think that there should be NO Anchor babies with the illegals.  Illegal plus baby goes back. 



YEP. WAAAAYYYY back, not just accross the border. POWDERMAN. 

I agree 100%  No Illegal Baby should be considered an American citizen. They should be a citizen of the country of there parents.

[newstart2k]

Does anybody else see the irony between the topic that started about activists judges that don't want to follow the constitution and has progressed to statements that we should ignore the 14th amendment?

NO?

Oh well, it must just be me.

[beerbelly]

I think most here want to go by the constitution as written. You lefty's want to interpret it to say what ever you want it to. The 14th was to allow slaves to become citizens, not foreigners.
                               Beerbelly

[powderman]

The 14th amendment was adopted to insure that children born of slaves in America were citizens, it has NOTHING to do with the babies born of these illegal invaders. Babies born here to illegal invaders are just that, ILLEGALS. POWDERMAN. 

[Redhawk1]

Does anybody else see the irony between the topic that started about activists judges that don't want to follow the constitution and has progressed to statements that we should ignore the 14th amendment?

NO?

Oh well, it must just be me.

Exactly what happens when you don't know what you are talking about..

beerbelly and  powderman are 100% correct. I suggest you brush up on the Constitution Of The United States there newstart2k

http://www.14thamendment.us/index.html

[BBF]

OK BBF, that was just mean.

Sarcasm intended, it was a given that she would get in, lets hope she was the last the present Admin gets to pick. BTW I'm not smug, here in Canada the PM picks whoever he wants with no vetting needed.

[BBF]

More and more I'm seeing things Dee's way.

  LOL !!   Fast way to be put on someone's Terrorist list

[-Shaggy-]

OK BBF, that was just mean.

Sarcasm intended, it was a given that she would get in, lets hope she was the last the present Admin gets to pick. BTW I'm not smug, here in Canada the PM picks whoever he wants with no vetting needed.

Pretty much the same process we have here now.....

[newstart2k]

Redhawk1,

I see the diffrenece now. We want there to be a different interpretation of the constitution when it is OUR interpretation that we agree with but no interpretations that we disagree with. It's much easier for a poor old uneducated idiot like myself to understand now. Thanks.

[Redhawk1]

Redhawk1,

I see the diffrenece now. We want there to be a different interpretation of the constitution when it is OUR interpretation that we agree with but no interpretations that we disagree with. It's much easier for a poor old uneducated idiot like myself to understand now. Thanks.

If you knew the true intent of the 14th Amendment, you would not make ignorant statements like that. It was about the slaves, not Illegal invaders.

Do some research and learn something. It can only make you more knowledgeable, and load knows there are a lot of people that need education.

[Redhawk1]

Redhawk1,

I see the diffrenece now. We want there to be a different interpretation of the constitution when it is OUR interpretation that we agree with but no interpretations that we disagree with. It's much easier for a poor old uneducated idiot like myself to understand now. Thanks.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.



Supreme Court decision.
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

[newstart2k]

Right again! It took little research (very, very, little) to find the following:


"The Senate record of 1866, when the amendment was drafted, is replete with acknowledgments by individual senators that the amendment would apply to the children of non-citizen immigrants. In fact, the issue was hotly debated.

For example, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania opposed the amendment on the Senate floor on the grounds that children of Asian immigrants would become citizens by virtue of the citizenship clause, and that Asians would “pour in their millions upon our Pacific coast in a very short time.”

Senator John Conness of California rejected this position, stating, “We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”"

Also this little tidbit:

"The principal author of the 14th Amendment was U.S. Rep. John Bingham (R-OH).  In Congress, all votes in favor of the 14th Amendment were from Republicans, and all votes against it were from Democrats."

Then there is the matter of the 14th amendment being the ONLY thing that ensures the 2nd amendment is applied to all and not just federal jurisdiction. By all means work to get it repealed.

[Redhawk1]

Right again! It took little research (very, very, little) to find the following:


"The Senate record of 1866, when the amendment was drafted, is replete with acknowledgments by individual senators that the amendment would apply to the children of non-citizen immigrants. In fact, the issue was hotly debated.

Not Illegal invaders...

You're either a bleeding heard liberal or a lost Libertarian... 

[Squib]

Again Kagan is part of what this country voted for. Who did people think Obama was going to appoint to the Court, constrict Constitutionalists? Now we have three radical leftist women on the Supreme Court. Kagan was unqualified, but yet 68 senators voted to place her. 
The supreme Court now has much more power than ever given by our Constitution. They have lifetime appointments, which also was never granted. If our Founders could see what powers the Judiciary now has they would be floored. They would say "wait a minute we wrote all this down so it wouldn't get to this". The Judiciary has the least power of the the three branches, and was only meant to give opinions. It has no authority to enforce their opinions. Congress does not have to follow what the court says.
Of course now when the court speaks, its the law of the land. This is why when we vote for a Prez. or Senator we should vote against any that think Judges are legislators. We should only vote for those that will appoint constrict Constitutionalists.

do you mean strict-constitutionalist?    I don't think judges are constrictors?   

[newstart2k]

Redhawk1, I agree with you totally but apparently the Supreme Court didn't.

169 U.S. 649 (1898)
UNITED STATES
v.
WONG KIM ARK.
No. 132.
Supreme Court of United States.

Argued March 5, 8, 1897.
Decided March 28, 1898.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

The following link will let you read the actual decision, not somebody's synopsis.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&hl=en&as_sdt=202&as_vis=1

BTW, though I'm not really sure what a "bleeding heard" is, I am sure I don't have to try to label people who may or may not agree with me just to try to make myself feel better. Fox News says its a sign of insecurity issues.   

[Redhawk1]

newstart2k,

Just call them like I see them. That is the problem with today society, way to thin skinned, and needing a lot of attention to make them feel better about themselves.

Way to much empathy and excuses for people being ignorant or stupid.. Forget political correctness, it is time we tell it like it is.

The people of the United States have been dumbed down for so long, they don't even know what is right and what is wrong. Way to many lawyers trying to interpret the Constitution, and push there agenda's. Washington DC is full of a bunch of B.S. lawyers.

[saddlebum]

newstart2k,

Just call them like I see them. That is the problem with today society, way to thin skinned, and needing a lot of attention to make them feel better about themselves.

Way to much empathy and excuses for people being ignorant or stupid.. Forget political correctness, it is time we tell it like it is.

The people of the United States have been dumbed down for so long, they don't even know what is right and what is wrong. Way to many lawyers trying to interpret the Constitution, and push there agenda's. Washington DC is full of a bunch of B.S. lawyers.

I'm not jumping on anyone's band wagon here or pointing a finger at anyone, but there is alot of truth in those statments. Just because the Supreme Court "rules" on something one way or another doesn't make it necessarily right. The line between right and wrong has been blured or obliterated by ideology,political correctness and postmodernism. Just look at the way we view SC judges and the way they are appointed and the reasons for appointing one particular judge over another. The president asks himself, does this person agree with my ideology? We don't ask ourselves, are they right or wrong. Instead we ask, are they right or left. How many judges in the SC are right and how many are left.

[Dixie Dude]

During Andrew Jackson's term as president, the Supreme Court ruled against moving Native Americans to Oklahoma.  He ignored the ruling and sent the army in and moved them anyways as fast as he could, thus the "Trail of Tears".  He said "let the Supreme Court enforce their ruling".  The couldn't.  If we had a President who would go against a ruling and say round up and send back home all the illegals, what could they do?  The president has the Executive power.  Now, granted, if the senate had acted in favor of the Supreme Court in Andrew Jacksons day, they could have impeached him and removed him from office.  However, the people wanted the Indian lands east of the Mississippi.  Native Americans were not only moved out of the South, but also some from the Midwest. 

[teddy12b]

I'm ashamed that Richard Luger voted her in.  He's from my state and is a perfect example of why term limits need to be in place.

[newstart2k]

saddlebum and redhawk1, by golly I think you're starting to see the light.

But I'll see your comment about the people of the US being dumbed down and raise you one. I think we're being led around by the nose.

Here's my question. Is it a pure coincidence that following two losses in the SC concerning gunrights (ie 2nd amendment) for the banners both based solely on the 14th amendment's due process clause that there is suddenly talk of repealing the 14th amendment? And it's the gun supporters forums that are trumpeting the cause? Somebody wakes up laughing at that one every morning.