Free Republic

It was actually 6 for 6 coin flips for the Hildebeast.

Obviously using the old, "Heads she wins, - tails you lose" trick.

"Here's a pic of the beautiful letter I received from Donald J. Trump today. Meticulously timed, and includes not only my individual caucus location, but also a Voter Registration Form for all his new voters out there!

Ground Game ... With Class!"

Obviously the Trump Gnomes kicking it into high gear...

One critical caveat : 1986 Amnesty was sold to the public as a one time only deal.

Those in Congress understood that you couldn't keep doing this type of thing again and again. It wasn't intended to serve as a springboard for future amnesties.

And the '86 amnesty proved to be a complete bust that wound up making things even worse.

They were saying that Jeb’s rivals should stress that point in their television and radio ads.

Graham, Pataki, and Gilmore are non factors; and the electorate understands that.

Christie struggles to even remain a focus of attention as far as republican voters are concerned.

The child will have the citizenship of its parents.

How is child being born with the citizenship of its own parents being "punished"...?

No.

The logistics were different; they had to travel all the way across the Atlantic on ships. Plus, with the Irish, the influx of immigrants from Ireland ( in the wake of the potato famine ), - proved to be finite. Even the "know nothings" came to realize that. There was always an ebb and a flow. Secondly the there wasn't the great disparity between the education/skill level of those immigrants and the native born, - like there is now.

In the 20th Century, there was basically an immigration "time out" (reduction) for several decades, while the country had a chance to assimilate various groups.

Look at what all that cheap foreign labor did for Microsoft.

They were the biggest tech giant on the planet; controlled practically 95% of the operating systems in home and office, - then missed out on all of the major tech developments of the 21st century ( revamped search engines, digital music, smartphones, tablets, social media ).

Here's Justice Hugo Black ( who served on the Miller Court ) about the court's decision :

"Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute."

(Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

As Stephen Halbrook correctly pointed out, under the "collective right" version of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court would have dismissed Miller's lawsuit against the Feds due to obvious lack of standing.

They would have explained that Miller obviously had no 2A rights and should have never been allowed to assert a claim for 2A protection in the first place.

And Romo has a guaranteed contract with a "no trade" clause.

Jerry wanted to make sure ( at the time ) that they wouldn't lose him in free agency.

Now they can't cut him or trade him.

And there's little chance of Dallas' current GM actually losing his job.

>Oh! Maybe the 49’ers will sign him to their practice squad.

Doesn't look like that's happening either.

Even with NT Ray McDonald getting busted today for domestic violence, and Aldon Smith on suspension.

They'll sign some other veteran/castoff before they sign him.

Seriously, how can anyone claim that this guy's accomplishments stack up against Hillary's...?

Ramos is a worthless SOB.

The Mexican government is explicitly given the authority, in its Constitution, to expel any foreign nationals from its country, at any time.

"In 1938, Congress again undertook to regulate firearms by passing the Federal Firearms Act ("FFA"), which regulated interstate commerce in firearms and prohibited possession of firearms by felons where an interstate nexus could be demonstrated. This legislation, since it primarily regulated only interstate commerce in firearms by requiring licenses and recordkeeping by manufacturers and dealers, was far less controversial than the NFA. Despite the lesser controversy surrounding the FFA, questions were nonetheless raised as to the constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms.

Addressing these constitutional questions on the Senate floor, Senator William H. King, a Utah Democrat, stated to Senator Copeland, the chief sponsor, that "we have a constitutional provision that right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ... [and that he] was wondering if this bill was not in contravention of the constitutional provision." Denying that the FFA was in contravention of the Second Amendment, Senator Copeland argued that the provisions of the Second Amendment must be read together, and that "[t]he part relating to militia is important ... [as (p.615)that part is], of course, in the first part of the constitutional provision." Senator McKellar responded that, "while [the Second Amendment] refers to the militia, the provision is all-inclusive and provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall remain inviolate."

The constitutional issue was not pursued further, however, apparently because the bill was designed as a regulation of interstate commerce. Moreover, the bill did not operate upon individual firearms owners, other than felons who received firearms in interstate commerce. A Senate committee explained the bill as follows:

The bill under consideration ... is designed to regulate the manufacture of and the shipment through interstate commerce of all firearms.

... It is believed that the bill above referred to will go far in the direction we are seeking and will eliminate the gun from the crooks' hands, while interfering as little as possible with the law-abiding citizen from whom protests have been received against any attempt to take from him his means of protection from the outlaws who have rendered living conditions unbearable in the past decade.

Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court rendered an equivocal opinion concerning the status of the NFA under the Second Amendment. Miller reached the Supreme Court after a district court had ruled that the NFA was unconstitutional on its face as violative of the Second Amendment. After ruling the NFA unconstitutional, the district court then dismissed an indictment for transporting in interstate commerce a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches without the required tax stamp. The Supreme Court reversed, offering the following reasoning:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Upon reversing, the Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. These proceedings would have required hearing evidence about the nature of the shotgun. In the absence of a factual record indicating that a "sawed-off" shotgun could have military uses, the Court did not consider whether the tax and related registration requirements of the NFA violated the Second Amendment. The Court apparently assumed that if the shotgun was a protected firearm under the Second Amendment, the tax and registration requirements may have been unconstitutional. Otherwise the Court could have disposed of the issue without remanding the case.

Furthermore, the Court apparently assumed that the Second Amendment protects all individuals, not just members of an organized force such as the National Guard. The test was not whether the person in possession of the arm was a member of a formal militia unit, but whether the arm "at this time" is "ordinary military equipment" or whether its use could potentially "contribute to the common defense." Consequently, had the Court assumed that the Second Amendment did not protect ordinary persons, it logically would not have remanded the case to determine the factual status of the firearm.

The Court also discussed the meaning of the Second Amendment. Referring to the militia clause of the Constitution, the Court stated that "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made." The Court then surveyed colonial and state militia laws to demonstrate that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

The Court in Miller also cited with approval to the commentaries of Justice Joseph Story and Judge Thomas M. Cooley, which articulate the philosophy behind the Second Amendment. In his commentary, Justice Story stated:)

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Judge Cooley's commentaries, also cited by the Court in Miller, state that:

Among the other safeguards to liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms.... The alternative to a standing army is "a well-regulated militia"; but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. The Federal and State constitutions therefore provide that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed ....

Thus, although Miller was somewhat equivocal, it provided little comfort to supporters of registration, for its apparent holding was that registration of military-type arms might be inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Indeed, Miller represents the end of an era, for Congress would soon react to the rise of European police states by reaffirming the Second Amendment and rejecting registration.

In the 1941 legislative effort, shortly before Pearl Harbor, Congress authorized the President to requisition property from the private sector on payment of fair compensation. The Property Requisition Act included the following:

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed-- (1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law), ... [or] (2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms ....[12]

Explaining the Property Requisition Act, the House Committee on Military Affairs provided the following statement:

In view of the fact that certain totalitarian and dictatorial nations are now engaged in the willful and wholesale destruction of personal rights and liberties, our committee deems it appropriate for the Congress to expressly state that the proposed legislation shall not be construed to impair or infringe the constitutional right of the people to bear arms.... There is no disposition on the part of this Government to depart from the concepts and principles of personal rights and liberties expressed in our Constitution.

"

CONGRESS INTERPRETS THE SECOND AMENDMENT: DECLARATIONS BY A CO-EQUAL BRANCH ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor that prosecuted the blind sheik, has basically conceded that he thinks this was what was actually going on in Benghazi.

Why do you think Hernandez wasn't selected until the fifth round? He played for Urban Meyer on a National Championship team. He even won All-American honors.

The consensus was that he might have had first round caliber talent, but he also had various "issues"; - including gang-related connections.

That was after he was quiet for the first couple of days.

I think those remarks were him preemptively trying to protect himself. Lord knows, he's probably lived a life that would make Charlie Sheen's look tame. How many women have dirt on him?

Did you happen to notice how THE most outspoken owner in the NBA, - Mr. Mark Cuban, suddenly fell silent when all the crap about Sterling broke loose...?

Birthright citizenship is only supposed apply to those who fall completely under the jurisdiction of the United States; - which means not owing allegiance to anyone else. See Elk vs. Wilkins. As well as what the Framers themselves discussed when attempting to pass the amendment through Congress.

They merely wanted to enshrine into Constitutional law what was already in effect as federal law via the 1866 Civil Rights Act.