monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Our constitution is designed to change with the times.

US President Donald Trump has offered condolences at the Pennsylvania synagogue where 11 Jewish worshipers were shot dead at the weekend.

He was joined by First Lady Melania Trump, his daughter and son-in-law at the Tree of Life temple in Pittsburgh.

Hundreds of protesters gathered on the street chanting slogans against the president.

The visit came as mourners attended the first funerals for victims of the massacre.

The Trumps were greeted on Tuesday by Rabbi Jeffrey Myers, who led them inside the temple, where the worst anti-Semitic attack in US history unfolded on Saturday.

At a memorial outside, the first lady placed a flower and the president laid a small stone on a marker for each of the victims.

Mr Trump was accompanied by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, and his daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism when she married Mr Kushner. Both are White House advisers.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who is Jewish, also joined the president.

Before his visit, the president condemned anti-Semitism. The alleged gunman was not a Trump supporter.

But critics accuse Mr Trump of fomenting a surge in white nationalist and neo-Nazi activity through divisive rhetoric.

Some Jewish figures and Pittsburgh's Democratic Mayor Bill Peduto opposed the presidential visit.

More than 70,000 people signed an open letter from Pittsburgh-based Jewish leaders saying that President Trump was "not welcome" in the city unless he "fully denounces white nationalism".

The top four Republican and Democratic congressional leaders declined a White House invitation to join Mr Trump in Pennsylvania.

The White House has rejected any blame over the attack.

Members of Pittsburgh's Jewish community were among about 2,000 demonstrators who held a protest, according to Reuters news agency.

As the president was driven through Pittsburgh, some bystanders made obscene gestures to his motorcade and thumbs-down gestures, reports AP news agency.

And Mr Trump arrived at the synagogue, demonstrators chanted "President Hate, leave our state" and "Words have meaning".

They held signs with such slogans as "We build bridges not walls", "Trump, Renounce White Nationalism Now" and "Trump's lies kill".

During the presidential visit, one protester holding a baby was seen by reporters calling out: "We didn't invite you here."

Earlier on Tuesday, mourners paid their respects to four victims of the massacre.

Brothers David and Cecil Rosenthal, who were aged 54 and 59, were among the first to be buried. They were the youngest victims of the shooting.

During a packed prayer service for the siblings, Rabbi Myers said: "They could illustrate a dictionary definition for 'pure souls.'"

Daniel Stein, 71, and Jerry Rabinowitz, 66, were also laid to rest.

Mr Rabinowitz was a doctor, known for his work with gay men diagnosed with HIV.

Support for the community has been pouring in from across the country.

A GoFundMe page created by an Iranian refugee studying in Washington DC, who has no connection to the Pittsburgh community, has already accumulated $900,000 (£700,000) to help rebuild the synagogue and support victims' families.

Another fund set up by Muslim-American groups to help pay for funeral costs has raised $200,000.

Personally, I think it's a political stunt intended for the mid-terms.

The president, clearly, does not have the authority to change the Constitution

but it would also open the door to all sorts of problems concerning the legitimacy of the citizenship of those who have been granted it by virtue of the 14th Amendment over the past 100 years, and possibly even those who are citizens by virtue of their being born to US citizens. If your great-great-grandparents' citizenship is delegitimized, what does that do to yours? It could lead to complete chaos.


I don't, however, believe they can because having taken an official stand on the interpretation of the Amendment (i.e. It only applies to freed slaves) they can't then grant themselves the authority to change it (i.e. through a grandfathering provision) to avoid the mess they would cause. In for a penny, in for a pound.

President Donald Trump says he wants to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil.

Most citizens are taught early in their education that birthright citizenship is an immutable, undisputed right, explicitly granted by the Constitution. But, it turns out, birthright citizenship may not be a constitutional right.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — enacted in 1868 — reads "(a)ll 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."

If the clause simply omitted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then there would likely be no debate, and birthright citizenship would be unassailable absent a constitutional amendment. But the "subject to the jurisdiction" language has created a lot of debate over the years.

To some scholars, birthright citizenship has been the result of an accidental interpretation of the Constitution, federal law and Supreme Court precedent — an error that they believe can be corrected without Constitutional amendment.

Shortly after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in 1872 had an opportunity to interpret it in the "Slaughterhouse Cases," observing that the amendment's "main purpose was to establish the citizenship of" African-Americans. It also concluded that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude the children of "ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."

The argument goes: If these categories of people were not "subject to the jurisdiction" then it follows that babies born of illegal immigrants have even less claim to citizenship.

But then, in 1898, the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States" was entitled to citizenship based on his birth on American soil.

But maybe it didn't. The Wong Kim Ark case did not actually decide whether children of illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship — only children of immigrant parents with "permanent domicile" in the United States.

Some scholars go further and argue that the Wong Kim Ark decision is completely erroneous, and based on a mistaken interpretation of the 14th Amendment — a mistake that has caused a major constitutional misunderstanding that persists to this day.

Those against birthright citizenship ultimately conclude that while the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause has been misapplied, it was always intended to grant citizenship only to people who are born here and whose parents are not foreign subjects.

To them, "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is not just some meaningless phrase, because there is a presumption that laws and the Constitution do not contain surplus or meaningless words. For the same reason that children of diplomats and invading armies would not be citizens, children of illegal immigrants should not be either. All of these children are — by this interpretation — not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Those who support birthright citizenship have a more straightforward argument. Whatever "subject to the jurisdiction" ultimately means, it doesn't change the rest of the language of the Citizenship Clause. If that vexing phrase has any limiting meaning, it just refers to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States —just as someone who commits crimes in interstate commerce is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government.

Whichever side is right, there's a compelling historical — if not legal — argument for not amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship. The Constitution has been amended to expand rights and increase protections. It is rarely amended to remove existing rights.

Arguably, the one time that has occurred in our history was the 18th Amendment, which imposed a federal criminal prohibition on alcohol. By any measure, that was ultimately a spectacularly unsuccessful amendment.

Brennan wife and kids": Mail bomb suspect's internet searches revealed

MIAMI -- A letter sent by attorneys with the Department of Justice to the federal judge handling Cesar Sayoc's case says a search of his laptop reveals that he likely began planning his crimes in July due to the creation date of a file called "Debbie W.docx," CBS Miami reports.

The letter also reveals that on September 18, Sayoc -- the suspect in a string of package bombs -- searched the internet for "vice-president-joe-bidens-house- former/view," and that he also searched for his victims and their families.

Some of the searches listed are:

"george soros and family" "hilary clinton and family" "james clapper wife and kids" "eric holder wife and kids" "john brennan wife and kids"

Sayoc is accused of targeting more than a dozen prominent Democrats and critics of President Trump this month with package bombs. Soros, Clinton, Clapper, Holder, Brennan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former President Obama were among those targeted through the devices, which according to authorities didn't have trigger mechanisms.

Federal prosecutors say Sayoc's cellphone contained photos of some of his victims, along with photos that "purport to be the home of former President Obama, the home of former Vice President Biden, and a driver's license belonging to former First Lady Michelle Obama that includes another address."

Sayoc was arrested Friday and charged with five federal crimes. He made his first court appearance on Monday in Miami.

Prosecutors wrote in the letter sent to the judge handling Sayoc's case that "the evidence of the defendant's terror campaign is still being collected but is already overwhelming."

"Because of the powerful proof that the defendant perpetrated these acts, he poses a substantial danger to the community," they wrote. "In light of the consequences at issue and the likelihood of conviction, the defendant is also a substantial flight risk. Therefore, pretrial detention is appropriate."

Despite his past criminal records, the letter says Sayoc "was repeatedly sentenced to terms of probation and he appears to have violated the terms of his probation at least twice since 2015."

As for why Sayoc needs to be jailed prior to his trial, prosecutors wrote, "previous lenient sentences were insufficient to deter the defendant, and he has never faced the type of sentencing consequences at issue in this case, which creates still greater incentives for him to flee."

A hearing on Sayoc's bond will be held Friday morning at 10 a.m. in Miami.