DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump’s Campaign Promises. The scoreboard.

It seems like a very ironic argument for him to make, doesn't it?

So he will just get rid of the constitution then charge them

You mean that pesky constitution that he seems to pretend doesn't exist? He claims he's going to end birthright citizenship too and that's protected by the constitution as well. Constitution? We don't need no stinking constitution.....................

In the United States, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, it states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/topics/birthright-citizenship

The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" likely needs defining more rigorously via the Judicial branch before it can argued birthright citizenship is guaranteed. The briefs and final opinions will make interesting reading.

Wherever you reside at any given time you're under their jurisdiction. I know this will be picked apart like Bill Clinton tried to do....

Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing."

Even when you travel you are under the jurisdiction of the destination you are in. Try explaining if you get arrested in Italy that you aren't subject to their jurisdiction.

And yet, the courts will be needed to clarify this. There are lay definitions and legal ones, it will take courts to sort it. I have no real sense on how this will turn out, other than it won't be as straight forward as it might seem ar first glance.

I agree that the birthright citizenship is hard to get around, and it probably won't happen. We will probably be stuck with a child to be named a ward of the state and ship the rest of the family back to wherever. Obviously if the child has family here, they can take them...assuming they are legal and come forward to claim the child.

Not an ideal choice if the mother decides to abandon her child and leave it here rather than go back with the rest of the family.

I fully understand that the legal system often times tend to complicate things that seems quite straight forward. I don't doubt this will be turned into a three ring political circus like most everything else we see these days. And I'm sure that attorney's will use court rooms as the location location to hold the circus.

I agree that no matter how this is handled, none of it is ideal. IMO it may be a very difficult decision by a parent. And simply describing it as abandonment may be a rather slanted and simplistic way to describe it. Depending on the country and the conditions of where they came from, leaving their child here may be the most humane thing they can do and give their child the best opportunity for a brighter future.

I'm certainly glad that is a decision I will never have to face.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Because this is a novel point in jurisprudence I think it will be interesting. The idea that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States simply because you are here is obviously incorrect. Being born here would imply being here and if that was enough they would not have added the clause to clarify or limit. So what does it really mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is that an exclusive designation? Certainly citizens of the US can be seen as being subject to the jurisdiction as they are culpable for crimes committed in foreign countries. Are citizens of other countries also subject to this jurisdiction from their home country while here? Does that change the text of 14A? This is a question the courts will have to answer.

The courts will also need to decide if jurisdiction merely implicates statues. For instance, if a US citizen born in Ohio is kidnapped and taken to to a foreign country the US government would be involved in retrieval/recovery. Federal agents would be dispatched to work with local authorities to facilitate this. If a foreign national is taken from the US the federal government may not see a need to be involved. The foreign national would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Certainly if the foreign nation were here illegally the chances of the federal government being involved would be dismissed. In this instance it isn't about statues but protection and responsibility. Again this is where the courts will need to weigh in.

I do not see something like this, especially because it is a novel question, to be decided in the next four years. It might well take twenty years, if there is a the determination to see it through. Ultimately it will be SCOTUS that decides this, but I doubt it will be in the current make up that has a crack at this, with an extended time table.


Beyond section 1 of 14A is section 5:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

This would allow the Congress to decide these issues initially, if they chose to take this up. It is pretty obvious that recent iterations of Congress have been loath to do more than pass token legislation as they are more concerned about staying in position and not doing the things they were sent to do. The executive would not be able to do much in this regard with the help of Congress, especially in light of decisions like Loper Bright.

If you're physically in The United States what other jurisdiction would you be subject to? Adding that to further clarify the point doesn't change the point.

I guess we'll see if they can make double talk legal speak work for them.

The Ambassador from France is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US with diplomatic immunity. Using the idea that jurisdiction merely means subject to the laws, which is not what is written. The words are chosen carefully, it isn't like people on a forum.


I do think the original intent may have been more geared to diplomates more than anything. THere would need to be research of the time period, including writings of those that framed 14A.

From what I've found that was the intent and the SCOTUS affirmed that in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The link below includes bot the majority opinion as well as the Dissenting opinion and was decided by a 6-2 decision.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...ibrary/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898

I'll have to give this a read later.

One of the things I notice when reading the opinion is the preexisting domicile and business. The parents were here making a life for themselves and had a child, not having a child to have a life here. I can see this as an argument in court against so called "anchor babies" and children of illegal immigrants.

I haven't had time e to see if there is updated precedents based on this decision that strengthens it. But this was a good read. As a side note it is interesting to me how the language and structure of written opinions has changed over time. The writing in this felt way more casual that say J. Gorsuch.

One thing we've learned from our back and forth over time is that anyone can make an argument but I don't believe that in any way changes the wording of the 14th amendment.

With three branches of government, Trump controls the executive, both houses of congress, and the supreme court via lackeys. He will do whatever he wants and get away with it all initially. If he does what he wants, all rules and laws will be suspended for a “National Emergency” and we will live under his version of Marshal Law. We know how inept he is, so maybe what’s left of our institutions can temper the damage done, but as of now I don’t see anyone holding them back in the first two years.

Lackeys? I don't think any on the court are that no matter if i agree with them or not.

All the other stuff you said is nonsense. We don't know that President Trump is inept. Maybe you think so, but that is you. No matter what you think of President Trump, he isn't inept.

This post could win the Booker prize.

Is Marshal law like Godwin's?

Here come the walk-backs...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-presidency-wont-failure-172014976.html

Trump says his presidency won't be a failure if he can't lower grocery prices
Alice Tecotzky
Thu, December 12, 2024 at 11:20 AM CST·2 min read


Trump said in his Person of the Year interview that lowering grocery prices is "very hard."

He said that high food prices were part of why he won the election.

Some economists think Trump's economic plans, like tariffs and deportations, will be inflationary.

President-elect Donald Trump didn't commit to being able to lower grocery prices in his Person of the Year interview with Time Magazine, after flagging the issue as an important part of his win.

Time asked Trump if failing to lower grocery prices, as he said he would do on the campaign trail, would make his presidency a failure.

"I don't think so. Look, they got them up. I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up," he said. "You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will."

Trump added that he thinks "energy" and "a better supply chain" will help bring down costs.

The economy consistently ranked as voters' top issue in the presidential election, with inflation in particular at the top of mind. Frustrated with the price of everything from eggs, to meat, to cereal, many voters said they supported Trump because they thought he would lower everyday costs.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to lower food prices, saying at a rally on September 23, "Vote Trump and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down." When talking about groceries in an interview last week, he said that he would "bring those prices way down."

In the interview, Trump said that Democrats lost because of their failure to talk about the economics of voters' daily lives, like the experience of buying groceries. Some economists predict that the president-elect's plans, like mass deportations and broad tariffs, will be inflationary. Walmart, the country's biggest grocery retailer, is among the companies that said it will likely raise prices if Trump enacts his trade agenda.

When asked whether his proposed mass deportations, including for migrant agricultural workers, would spike food prices, Trump said no.

"No, because we're going to let people in, but we have to let them in legally," he said, before moving on to talk about not allowing prisoners into the country.

Inflation ticked up slightly in November, with the consumer price index rising to 2.7% from a year ago, as expected. The food-at-home index rose slightly as well, reaching 1.6% in November compared to 1.1% in October.

Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

I know this makes me look a certain way, but I can't wait to see this play out. There's a really weird energy at work today so that isn't helping either.

I think I've wrapped my head around why people voted so strongly against the Dems. Many people voted so that Trump would follow through on his economic promises as well as addressing the southern border and felt that Dems really weren't tuned in to their day-to-day struggles. Dems tend to be tone-deaf to everyday people.

I'm highly skeptical he'll do anything substantive in terms of the border (more EA's and that'll probably be it). Moreso, I see many of the things he's talking about the most (tariffs and mass deportations) having an adverse effect on overall pricing. Inflation and rising costs are going to be felt more by the middle and lower economic classes, and it's the red states/areas that tend to be not-so well off financially. I'm curious how these people will feel having voted for Trump largely on a single issue and then watching him make that issue worse.

Obviously, this is all based on my own assumptions of how things play out. If Trump is able to deliver on his promises in the manner he describes (the little that he does put out there, at least), I'd also love to see that too.

There are people in my office who are pretty hardcore Trump supporters, too. Many of which are also fans of telework. Although I hate the prospect of telework ending, I can't help but be interested in their reaction as well...in addition to all the other rhetoric that is being spun about federal employees right now as well (pay freezes, layoffs, "deleting", etc.)

I will say the Democrats are terrible at messaging. They don't lay the cards on the table so that the middle class understand the nature of things. When it comes to inflation that was global. It wasn't "Bidenomics". They could have made that message quite clear had they have focused on it. 179 nations around the globe suffered the same type of inflation America did. We did far better than most of those nations in the recovery of that situation. But they ignored putting that message out.

While people will argue over it, they could have shown that it was Republicans who voted down a comprehensive immigration deal. Now I know we have posters that claim it was not actually a comprehensive immigration bill but had the democrats have bothered to show that our own Customs and Border Protection agency whose job it is to control the border was in favor of the bill that would have, or at least should have carried more weight than what the talking heads were saying.

Democrats certainly didn't hone in to the most pressing issues on the minds of voters.

That's a good summation. If they want to survive, they need to hunker down and return back to their messaging of defending the middle class and working people in general. Also, let the chips fall where they may during the presidential primary. Two times now they have botched it, with the same idiot on the other side taking advantage.

Martial Law, oh you got me there, Einstein. They attack semantics when they have nothing else. Like all trolls. I’m sure that’s not the case here, he just struggle to sleuth out my incorrect use of Marshall… BUT he got it.

Trump won BIG.....and he has just over a month until he gets the biggest job in the world again.....he has started to step back from some of his promises--- ie. lower grocery bills-- gas is down quite a bit in Fl currently....will be interesting once he gets job in late Jan and gas prices to UP again and he's blamed....transportation costs always effect the bottomline. IF he deports lots of folks- lower paying jobs, farm workers, animal processing plants, homebuilders, fast food workers, resturants- lots of those jobs were NOT being filled by our young- not good enough....so things are going to get interesting.....at least we'll have the law abiding citizens who caused millions of dollars of damage to the Captial off the federal food, housing, health care expenses once he pardons the rioters and folks who wanted to overthrow the government.....they will probably get justice or law enforcement jobs.....interesting times ahead..... I pray for Trump and our nation....although Donald has stated he's never done anything really wrong.....really, time will tell. Peace to all.

I don't see a walk back. I never really expected to see much happen on prices. Once prices go up, they rarely come back unless business starts to cut wages, which won't happen. Inflation is 99% CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT POLICY.. The more money we print, the less valuable it becomes....pretty simple. The Biden policy has cause irrespirable harm to prices.

I just look forward to DOGE cutting the hell out of government fat. We have all been wanting that forever, but now that it is going to happen people are all up in arms.

I really think some of you need to start looking at what the Biden syndicate and Dem party in general has done to this country and take a look in the mirror.

US Debt by President: Dollars and Percentage-- look it up. EVERY President in modern times has contributed to national debt- TRUMP in his FOUR years has 4/5 the total of eight years of Obama-- will be interesting to see the final numbers AFTER Trump's second Presidency. That is ASSUMING he peacefully gives up power after his four years- that didn't happen four years ago. ALL politicians make promises they have NO intention of keeping because they don't control the outcomes. They are like the advertizements we get constantly- promise the moon and get just to the upper atmosphere. Pray for Biden/ Trump and all who serve- that they might really do what is for the common good vs their party/ideology. Peace to all.

You should know by now that bringing actual facts to a conversation with trumpians here is futile.

Botched it up by choosing a women candidate twice. Just shows most Murican men aren’t ready for a Women president, black, white or redneck.

"“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,” Trump continued. “We will drill, baby, drill,” he said, referring to increasing domestic oil production. “That’s going to bring down prices of everything.”

So you knew he was lying all along?


Sadly no matter how much you carry on about it Democrats aren't running 179 nations around the globe. That's how many nations suffered from post covid inflation. But for some reason people such as yourself ignore reality and act like that's not true. It was a global inflation issue and not a "Bidenomics" issue. It's time to break out your telescope instead of continuing to stare into your microscope. There's a great big world out there and until you start looking at all of it you will be continually tricked into a faulty reality.

What did he lie about? He literally just said the same exact thing in this interview. Dawglover wrongly called it a "walk-back" when all he did is answer a stupid question about whether his presidency would be a failure if grocery prices didn't come down.

Are you saying that his response didn't walk back “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,”?

"What did he lie about? "

Almost everything!

If you want, I'm sure you can find a list of his lies. Many publications have listed them.

But I bet you won't look..

100%

His response is to whether his presidency would be a failure.

Maybe go back and read.

I saw the question. I also saw the response to the question which appears to me to be quite different than what he was saying on the campaign trail. During the campaign he stated plainly prices would start coming down on "day one". His response was directly connected to the same topic. Prices going down. I suppose anyone can make what they want from that. But when you give contrasting answers on the exact same topic it's hard for me to pretend the statements don't conflict.

But that's not unique to trump. It's pretty much standard operating procedures for politicians in general to say one thing on a topic during the camaign only to backtrack on it after they've been elected.

Opinion
Trump Prepares to Wreck Economy With Alarming Bank Regulator Plan
Edith Olmsted
Fri, December 13, 2024 at 3:26 PM EST·2 min read
412


In an effort to shrink the size of the federal government, Donald Trump’s transition team is considering different plans to abolish a crucial financial regulatory agency—a move that could have far-reaching effects on the economy.

While interviewing potential nominees for positions heading up government financial agencies, Trump advisers have floated whether it would be worth dissolving some agencies, like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The team is considering moving the responsibilities of the FDIC, which include providing deposit insurance for banks, to the Treasury Department, some people familiar with the matter told the Journal.

Potential nominees have also been meeting with DOGE co-chairs technocrat troll Elon Musk and failed presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, as well as hedge fund manager Scott Bessent, the major Trump donor tapped to lead the Treasury, according to sources.


The FDIC is key to financial stability and security because it insures funds in depositors’ checking and savings accounts. To threaten that insurance would almost certainly cause customers to fear that their money is no longer safe. It could potentially lead to a run on the banks, which might result in banks failing in a major financial collapse.

But if a cut makes the wiley DOGE czars feel like they’re reducing bureaucratic redundancies, it must be worth it, right?

Sheila Bair, who previously served as chair of the FDIC, warned about the plan to dissolve the essential regulator.

“Eliminating the FDIC is so out there, not sure it needs response,” Bair wrote in a post on X Friday. “FDIC has a perfect record of protecting insured deposits for over 90 years. Strong consumer confidence in the brand, providing stability during crises. During the [Great Financial Crisis], money was running INTO banks.”

Bair, who also served as the former assistant secretary for financial institutions, explained that the Treasury Department was not well suited to take on the responsibilities of the FDIC.

“As a former Treasury official, big supporter of the Department, but it would not be a good home for deposit insurance. Deposit insurance is funded by bank premiums, not taxpayers. Treasury has no expertise in handling bank failures. Changing the guarantor would create confusion among depositors who are comforted by the ‘FDIC Insured’ sign at their banks,” she added in a separate post.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-prepares-wreck-economy-alarming-202637927.html

He didn’t win big. He won a plurality, but had less than 50%. Look at the latest/final numbers. He has no mandate other than to bring grocery and gas prices down. Cheap eggs, remember? Nobody voted for all the fascist crap he wants to pull… no normal people anyway.

And I know damn well nobody voted for gutting veterans benefits, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Well maybe a few hooplehead dumplings that think that money somehow comes from their pockets.