Ted joined Dan and Amy to discuss the chaos caused by Chicago and Illinois’ sanctuary policies, the chances of a congestion tax coming to Chicago, the potential for a showdown between immigration czar Tom Homan and Pritzker and Johnson, and more.
Read more from Wirepoints:
- Regardless of what Trump disrupts, Illinoisans themselves must disrupt far more to fix this state
- Illinois badly needs disruption. Trump will deliver some, but most must come from everyday Illinoisans
- While S&P downgrades Chicago, Mayor Johnson and city officials deny failures
- Adults murdering kids. Kids murdering kids. “Random” bullets killing kids. Nearly 100 dead youth in Chicago in 2024
Audio and summary 
If this bill passes, say goodbye to local control over all Illinois parks and expect to see open drug and alcohol use, needles, no sanitation and fire hazards, but no ordinary park users.
Remove mayor Johnson he is nothing but liability for city of Chicago.
-2 TD’s So do you want him to stay and why?
RNUG has made his view known that this EO will be struck down in lower courts and not heard by SCOTUS or that SCOTUS will strike it down. He may be correct as indicated by the refusal of SCOTUS to end the DACA (Dreamers) Obama EO. The language was a purposeful gobblegook ‘dodge’ because they did not have the guts to take on this issue as pointed out “Why should we be the bad guy”. Afterall, these were illegals were not even born in the U.S. and they found every illogical excuse they could to not deport them. Of course… Read more »
Chaos was the organization Maxwell Smart worked for and watch out for elevator doors if you’ve got a big beak!
Old Joe, pretty sure that Chaos was the enemy agency. Maxwell Smart worked for CONTROL. Loved that show!
Remember the Cone of Silence and I missed him by that much. Also Agent 99/Larabee/Chief/Seigfried and Hymie.
Actually, spelled KAOS. Fantastic show! There was a Portable Cone of Silence they had to take traveling in one episode, maybe to London. It also didn’t work. (The Cone of Silence was invented by a Professor Kohn, BTW.)
Excellent fact checking there. Do we have great commenters or what?
We sure do. Thanks everybody for setting me straight.
Priests and bishops and other clergy (as well as many non-believers) call out for compassion. One needn’t subscribe to religious views in order to have sympathy for illegal immigrants. Jesus said “render unto Caesar” and Jefferson (the slave-owner and wine connoisseur) called for separation of church and state. It’s perfectly OK for those who advocate for undocumented (a/k/a “illegals”) to make the philosophical and religious arguments on their behalf. That’s what some call “advocacy.” Lots of “believers” voted for Trump, who is not necessarily opposed to compassion — although many characterize him as falling short in the virtue department. Religious… Read more »
EXECUTIVE ORDER January 20, 2025 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently… Read more »
Somebody is opposed to providing real information. Another little Leftie who will not use a real name and respond. Typical of that type.
We all know this has to go to SCOTUS. Hopefully, they won’t purposely drag it out.
Question to readers. How do think SCOTUS will rule on Trump’s EO.
While I would support ending birthright citizenship for the children here illegally, SCOTUS will strike down this executive order. A lower court may strike it down and SCOTUS may just refuse to take the case. Either way it won’t stand.
Why, other than their own personal opinion and political views or they do not have the courage to take it on. I really hope you will respond. I have seen other posts made by you and they are quite thoughtful. Here are my thoughts: (4) Elimination of Auto Birth Citizenship. Present federal policy under * U.S.C. Section 1401 is presently interpreted to mean that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen even if the parents were here illegally. This interpretation is not based upon any P.A. Law that specified that specifically. It has developed over many years since the… Read more »
Why? Other than individual members of SCOTUS may have a different ideological view or are somehow ‘afraid.’ I have seen other posts by you and you are thoughtful. Here is how I see it. Again, hope you respond. (4) Elimination of Auto Birth Citizenship. Present federal policy under * U.S.C. Section 1401 is presently interpreted to mean that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen even if the parents were here illegally. This interpretation is not based upon any P.A. Law that specified that specifically. It has developed over many years since the 14th Amendment which states that “All… Read more »
I don’t think SCOTUS wants to touch this and be responsible for the aftermath. I think those hoping the EO stands are putting too much hope on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Reminds me of those against the second amendment that cling to the words “well regulated militia” as some excuse that the 2nd amendment shouldn’t apply. Are we really saying that these kids that are born here aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Do they have allegiance to another country besides the US? It’s a razor thin argument. Long standing precedent. Yes I know… Read more »
What you seem to be saying, in effect, is that the opponents of this EO will cherry-pick liberal DEM packed Courts who will overrule it and that SCOTUS does not have the intestinal fortitude to take it on.
As they say, time will tell. You could be correct.
=Are we really saying that these kids that are born here aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Do they have allegiance to another country besides the US? It’s a razor thin argument.= Good comment. However, to assume that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ auto applies to those born regardless of their legal status is really stretching it (and yes, the liberal judges will use that argument.) However, when I travel abroad I am subject to their jurisdictional laws and can be expelled or imprisoned if I violate them. Just because I am subject to their jurisdictional laws… Read more »
Comparing what other countries do to determine citizenship has no relevance on our constitution or how this will play out in the courts. It makes a great argument as to why we should end birthright citizenship but does nothing to address our constitution. Everyone born here is a citizen if they are subject to our jurisdiction according to our constitution. The words are very clear. For Trump to win the justice department will need to show that the written words of our constitution didn’t really apply and they just chose poor wording when drafting. That’s a tough argument to make… Read more »
In 1995 Coughenour found Washington State’s Sexually Violent Predator Law to be “criminal in nature’
Coughenour has opposed federal mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of crimes.
Yep, Reagan got snookered on that appointment.
I do not believe that SCOTUS can dodge this issue. They have to take it. Again, Roberts and Barrett will be swing votes. Have no idea as to how it comes out.
=Just a reminder that my legal assessment has nothing to do with my desired outcome.=
Since you have ventured into this discussion would you please share your ‘desired outcome.?
I didn’t venture into this discussion. My old name was RNUG but it upset another reader so I changed it.
Understand thoroughly in this day and age.
It’s going to go to the Supreme Court and they’re going to hear it. The problem with our currently, illogical interpretation, is that there is no limiting principle to cut off the extreme cases. And when you can’t deny citizenship to even the most extreme cases, then birthright citizenship is no principle at all. The English Common Law, the underlying principle for our 14th Amendment, understood this, and that’s why the 14th Amendment used the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Clarence Thomas understands that the 14th amendment which gave citizenship to former slaves has been perverted to allow… Read more »
Totally agree. Unlike RNUG, who may be correct, I think SCOTUS has to hear it. The question is how Barrett and Roberts will rule.