[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Rand Paul: 'How Do You Out-Trump the Irrational?'
Source: NBC News
URL Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre ... u-out-trump-irrational-n412451
Published: Aug 20, 2015
Author: Chris Jansing, Shawna Thomas
Post Date: 2015-08-20 13:41:10 by Hondo68
Keywords: Trump bone-headed, cant have, birthright citizenship
Views: 1652
Comments: 28

CAP-HAITIEN, HAITI — Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul says it's only a matter of time until the country wakes up to Donald Trump's insincere message, but he's worried that some Americans are blinded by his "celebrity."

In a series of interviews between performing pro-bono eye surgeries in Haiti with the University of Utah's Moran Eye Center, the Kentucky senator was relaxed in scrubs, dismissive of Trump and critical of the media's role in Trump's rise.

"How do you out-Trump the irrational?" he asked.

It's a question he and the other Republican candidates are puzzling over. Paul said the reason "people have gone gaga" over the billionaire real estate mogul is that he's tapped into anti-establishment conservative anger.

In many ways, it's not dissimilar from the anti-Washington sentiment that helped Paul rise to his own political fame. But in the case of Trump, Paul believes there's no substance at all behind the frustration.

"I've likened it to 'The emperor has no clothes.' He's saying things that are completely vapid, things that are completely vulgar and completely a non sequitur."

And Paul is confident that the Trump show can't last.

"There's no way the voters in the country will nominate him. Absolutely not," Paul said.

Paul acknowledged that Trump's organization has helped to fund Paul's charity eye surgery trips, which are planned by the Moran Eye Center. The organization confirmed to NBC Wednesday that the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $10,000 to support the medical mission to Haiti that Rand Paul participated in. Trump's group also donated $10,000 in 2014 to support humanitarian work in Guatemala.

In the interview with NBC News, Paul took particular aim at Trump's recently released immigration proposal, which he said made "no sense" and is "bizarre."

"Even the people who think they might like him, when they hear what his bone-headed plan is, you think they might have second thoughts," he said.

Still, one element of Trump's immigration plan that Paul won't push back on is his proposal to end birthright citizenship.

Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen. He told NBC News that today's circumstances still warrant that move.

"What I would say is, if you have an open border you can't have birthright citizenship," he said.

He also said his preference is to fix the border, adding that "no Republican or Democrat president" since 1986 has properly enforced America's immigration laws.

One policy agreement with Trump isn't changing his thinking about the New York candidate, and Paul isn't changing his campaign plan.

Asked if he will change tactics to counter his faltering poll numbers when he is back on the campaign trail next week, he doesn't see a need to.

"I think I do exactly the same thing I've been doing," he said.

Next week, that will mean a West Coast swing that will take him to Alaska and other Western states where his campaign believes his message resonates.


Poster Comment:

Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen. He told NBC News that today's circumstances still warrant that move.

Does The Donald stand with Rand, or with the GOP establishment reconquistas?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

#5. To: hondo68 (#0)

"Back in 2011, Paul co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to put an end to the right that allows everybody born on U.S. soil to be a citizen."

Saying we need an amendment is a bullshit excuse to do nothing. He's smart enough to know that Congress has a history of allowing or banning whole classes of people from becoming citizens.

Congress only needs to pass a law prohibiting children of illegals to become citizens. If it wanted, Congress has the power to prohibit ALL Mexicans from becoming citizens.

Congress controls naturalization, not the courts.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-20   16:03:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#5)

Congress controls naturalization, not the courts.

Naturalization, yes. But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. They are not naturalized, they're natural born. Congress can't do anything about that, other than propose an amendment to the Constitution.

The way to fight it is by controlling the Border, to keep people from crossing it in the first place, and to control employment opportunities, by crushing employers who hire illegals. Make it hard to get here and financially unrewarding, and you will have the illegal flow dry up, and you won't have to worry too much about anchor babies anymore.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-20   17:02:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

"But the 14th Amendment says that those born on US soil are citizens. They are not naturalized, they're natural born."

If they are born on U.S. soil they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and that jurisdiction can say they're not citizens.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-20   17:39:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#8)

If they are on US soil and don't have diplomatic immunity, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction. That means that they can be tried in US courts.

It also means that their children born here are US citizens, per the 14th Amendment. That cannot be changed unless the Constitution itself is amended.

This is a blind alley. This is the Polish cavalry charging the panzers. It's an unwinnable fight on the wrong battlefield.

Control the border and crucify employers of illegals, and the demand will go away and illegals will self- deport. But babies born here are US citizens if their parents don't have diplomatic immunity.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-20   20:35:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

"That cannot be changed unless the Constitution itself is amended."

Congress can simply pass a law. The ones who want you believe an amendment is required are those who don't want the law changed.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-20   22:06:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite (#10)

I myself, personally, as a trainee legal professional, believe that the Constitution has to be amended to remove birthright citizenship.

OR that Congress could indeed pass a law regarding jurisdiction. But if the courts were to use any sort of standard at all - anything based on 230 years of precedent, then they would have to rule that if the US doesn't have JURISDICTION over illegals, they all have legal immunity and can't be prosecuted.

I myself, personally, think that if we just "pass a law" and play THAT fast and loose with the Constitution and the legal precedents, that the country is well and truly OVER.

Abortion sort of took us there, morally. But this would be a clean break with any rule of law. This would be Nazi Germany/Soviet Union stuff. Just do whatever the hell, and say whatever the hell, because you want to.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-20   22:46:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

"But if the courts were to use any sort of standard at all - anything based on 230 years of precedent, then they would have to rule that if the US doesn't have JURISDICTION over illegals, they all have legal immunity and can't be prosecuted."

The courts interpreted "to regulate commerce" as including "to prohibit commerce".

The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-21   11:13:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#14)

The courts can easily interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as meaning "owing allegiance to no other country". And there's 230 years of precedent for that interpretation.

No, they cannot easily do this. They cannot do it because jurisdiction MEANS the power to be held accountable by the court.

If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, it cannot hear the case.

Can the Duluth City Police suit up and enforce tickets in Miami? No. No jurisdiction.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-21   13:11:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

"They cannot do it because jurisdiction MEANS the power to be held accountable by the court."

Ah. But we're not debating the definition of "jurisdiction". We're discussing the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment.

And, in context, THAT has been defined as "owing allegiance to no other country".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-21   13:32:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 19.

#21. To: misterwhite (#19)

Ah. But we're not debating the definition of "jurisdiction". We're discussing the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment.

And, in context, THAT has been defined as "owing allegiance to no other country".

Jurisdiction is a word of general use in jurisprudence.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means "subject to be tried in the courts of..." or "subject to the police powers of...".

The fellow who drafted the 14th Amendment had a view. But he did not ratify the amendment. Jefferson had views too, and he drafted things. However, it was Congress, and then the states, that ratified the language, and the language they ratified was the words of the amendment. That does not mean that they ratified the opinion of the drafter about what the amendment means. They did not. They ratified the words of the amendment.

That word "jurisdiction" and those words "subject to the jurisdiction of" are standard juridical words.

They have a very long history of precedent, and they mean what those precedents mean. They mean what those legal precedents say. When judged by courts, the meaning of jurisdiction is what the Common Law tradition of the courts say jurisidction means.

The opinion of some Congressman who drafted language that was eventually ratified as an emendment is totally irrelevant. It was his opinion. It is not law, it never was law. The law is what the the Supreme Court precedents say jurisidiction means, and in no way whatever is the law what the drafter of some law personally felt it ought to mean.

His opinion is interesting - that's what he felt about it. But in a court of law, the word means what the court has said it means, and not what the drafter of the 14th Amendment means.

Jurisdiction, as a formal matter of positive law affirmed by centuries of Supreme Court opinion means that the authority in question has the power to try or to enforce. That is what the word is DEFINED as by our law.

No Congressman has the power, by his opinion, to change any of that. If Ron Paul proposed a "liberty law" and it was passed, the fact that Ron Paul believes that "liberty" includes drug legalization, and said so in the Congressional record, is an interesting detail of history. And it's meaningless. What a Congressman says his legislation means is nothing. It hjas no legal force. Congress does not pass Congressmen's opinions. It passes words, and those words mean what the legal structure of the country says they mean, and not what their authors say they mean.

The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction. It does not mean allegiance. Ever. The Congressman stated his opinion. His opinion was wrong, irrelevant, not law, not precedent. It's an opinion, of a man long dead. A lawyer can bring it before judges and justices if he likes, and the judges or justices will let him present it. And then they'll apply the legal meaning of the word, which is what the courts say it means, and not what a long-dead congressman said.

That's just the truth.

Ron Paul can argue that "liberty" means the right to do drugs. He believes it firmly. But no court will agree, or law enforcement, nor anybody. It's his opinion. And that's all it is.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-21 14:17:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com