Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[jon_berzerk]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

There

And? Are you saying that illegals are not required to follow our laws while in our country? (That's what jurisdiction means, btw)

do they follow the law

explain fake and stolen identities and stolen ss numbers

they use to get by in the United States

Yes....and that is ILLEGAL. Right? Which means they are under our jurisdiction if they are to be held accountable for it.

But their children born here? Are they held accountable too? Do we ignore the very plain language of the 14th Amendment?

doesnt make em a citizen though

actually breaking the law is a ticket out

 

[80zephyr]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

SCOTUS Baby! Hang on to your pussyhat.

"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."

Where is the interpretation wiggle room in that?

Its been explained already. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Mark

So, they cannot be arrested if they commit a crime?

Do you understand the discussion?

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[BrokeLoser]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Learned what works from his predecessors. That such extra-constitutional maneuvers worked for them with a collective shrug of the shoulders does not excuse such an act but is indicative of the very old partisan game of 'its ok so long as my guy does it".

and that mentality is what built this shitpile of a gov we're in today. wrong is wrong and i don't care which side does it. if we are having such a problem working together that we have to take short cuts to get what OUR SIDE wants then that should be a HUGE FRIGGIN FLAG of what we need to fix first.

Again, that all sounds noble, it makes me warm and fuzzy inside...but FUCK warm and fuzzy...it’s time to do the right thing for the right people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

 

[candycorn]

There is no upside

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

No upside for Trump I meant

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

There is no tinkering. Every case the SCOTUS takes is to provide clarification of our laws under the Constitution.

Do you have a problem with that?

Mark

None at all. He should try to overturn a Constitutional amendment with an EO. Lol

 

[Wyatt earp]

The thing that a lot of you guys are missing is the interpretation.

No place in the 14th is birthright citizenship automatically given to children of illegal immigrants.

It's not a constitutional amendment. There is no need for a constitutional amendment because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants isn't in the Constitution.

''Under the jurisdiction of'' means that no other country can claim allegiance of the child. But since the parents are illegal immigrants and technically hold allegiance to another country, the other country can claim the child's allegiance to its country.

Under the jurisdiction of, as it is written in the 14th, demands that the United States must be able to claim the child's complete allegiance. Which it can't do so long as another country can. Therefore, a constitutional amendment is moot.

It's pretty simple. A lot of you are arguing the wrong stuff.

Was it ever challenged in court the way people interpret it today?

It had to be

 

[Natural Citizen]

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.

Nope. It's never been adjudicated. It will be now, though. Guaranteeed.

 

[candycorn]

There is no upside

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

No upside for Trump I meant

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

United States is one of only two developed countries to maintain birthright citizenship (the other is Canada). Trump knows that an executive order will immediately be challenged in court, and then taken to the Supreme Court. That’s his goal. So no, an executive order won’t immediately take effect, and even an act of Congress would be litigated.

Nice try, gator bait.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Was it ever challenged in court the way people interpret it today?

It had to be

Nope. It's never been adjudicated. Ever.

Something else, and this is a more recent trend, I think about 7 countries have also revoked birthright citizenship over the last 20 years.

 

[percysunshine]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I am guessing ‘natural born’ does not include c-section.

All you people delivered by c-section have to leave!

 

[BluesLegend]

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

No upside for Trump I meant

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

 

[well named]

For those interested in some of the legal background on the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, here is a 2006 article written by a 2017 Trump nominee to the 5th circuit court of appeals.

"The Fourteenth Amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Repeal proponents contend that this language does not apply to the children of aliens – whether legal or illegal (with the possible exception of lawful permanent residents) – because such persons are not “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction.” But text, history, judicial precedent, and Executive Branch interpretation confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches most U.S.-born children of aliens, including illegal aliens.

We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause. To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey. Common usage confirms this understanding. When we speak of a business that is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency, it must follow the laws of that agency, whether it likes it or not. When we speak of an individual who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court, he must follow the judgments and orders of that court, whether he likes it or not. As Justice Scalia noted just a year ago, when a statute renders a particular class of persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress “has made clear its intent to extend its laws” to them.

Of course, when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Howard Stern need not swear allegiance to the FCC to be bound by Commission orders. Nor is being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. limited to those who have always complied with U.S. law. Criminals cannot immunize themselves from prosecution by violating Title 18. Likewise, aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, illegal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law.

Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory...."
​

He goes on to discuss the history of jurisprudence surrounding jus soli citizenship and the drafting of the 14th amendment:

"Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

Mr. HOWARD. ... this amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
​

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected espe- cially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

"The proposition before us ... relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. ... I am in favor of doing so. ... We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
​

I think the history makes very clear that the amendment extends birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, and that this right cannot be overturned by executive order.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Jurisdiction is the ability of an entity to enforce laws and administer justice.

The US has jurisdiction to enforce laws within its borders regardless of the legal status of the individual.

And what the 14th Amendment says is that if an individual for whom the federal government and the state has jurisdiction is born in the United States, that person is a citizen.

Your interpretation of jurisdiction is wrong.

 

[g5000]

I'm going to show you a photo of a creature which absolutely terrifies pseudocons. It causes them to curl up in a ball, shit their pants, and whimper.

It is a creature more terrifying than a Muslim suicide bomber, more horrifying than a transsexual, more disgusting than a negro on food stamps. It is a creature so unbelievably frightening, the pseudocon propagandists had to invent a new term for it.

Brace yourself.














Ready?














Watch out for the ANCHOR BABIES!!!! AAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

OH GOD PLEASE NO, NOT THE ANCHOR BABIES....

 

[candycorn]

No upside for Trump I meant

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.

 

[Lysistrata]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

How stupid does a person have to be, particularly one who occupies the Oval Office, to think that he has the right to change the Constitution of the United States by signing an order? Amending the Constitution is a long and arduous procedure. Isn't there even one lawyer in the federal government anymore? Unbelievable!!!

 

[iceberg]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Learned what works from his predecessors. That such extra-constitutional maneuvers worked for them with a collective shrug of the shoulders does not excuse such an act but is indicative of the very old partisan game of 'its ok so long as my guy does it".

and that mentality is what built this shitpile of a gov we're in today. wrong is wrong and i don't care which side does it. if we are having such a problem working together that we have to take short cuts to get what OUR SIDE wants then that should be a HUGE FRIGGIN FLAG of what we need to fix first.

Again, that all sounds noble, it makes me warm and fuzzy inside...but FUCK warm and fuzzy...it’s time to do the right thing for the right people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

so you seem to be saying it's ok to do bullshit things as long as you get what you want.

gee. how did this bucket of shit become an ocean again???

 

[BluesLegend]

Let me tell you what is going to happen, Trump will push this issue to the SCOTUS which will rule in Trumps favor and the left will freak out.

 

[BluesLegend]

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.

The fact is your side lost, Trump is POTUS, ouch!

 

[g5000]

Let me tell you what is going to happen, Trump will push this issue to the SCOTUS which will rule in Trumps favor and the left will freak out.

You've been wrong so many times before, thus it is no surprise you wouldn't stop now.