Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[mudwhistle]

You can't fix laws by EO. This may force the supreme court to interpret the law.

A POTUS *can* fix laws by EO (e.g. Barak the Nimrod did it on several occasions) because the Executive can determine when/why/how to enforce laws through it's agencies and thanks to Congress having deferred so much of it's Constitutional Authority to the Executive those same agencies get broad discretion on the details of how those laws look when they hit the Federal Register.

That being said, Executive Orders were never intended to "fix" or "change" existing law, it's only because they've been abused for so long that the precedent has been set and half the Partisan Sheeple accept it when *their* POTUS does it.

I hope some dumbass takes this to court.

You don't need to hope, if Trump follows through on this EO , it's GUARANTEED to be challenged in Court.

And blown out of the water once and for all.

Don't count on it, I would say that the chances are more than good that a SCOTUS decision will go against Trump given the social ramifications of upholding such an EO.

Nope. The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to include children of illegals. It's original intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves in a counter move to head of Democrats attempts to maintain slavery in the South.

Yada Yada Yada...….The word "slave " is not in the amendment

The word slave doesn't have to be in there for it to be its intent.

What is the 14th amendment to the US constitution?

"The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868, after the American Civil War, and addresses the equal protection and rights of former slaves. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all citizens, the amendment also addresses what is called "due process", which prevents citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property."​

 

[whitehall]

Funny how the left didn't mind democrat icon FDR incarcerating American citizens without due process. Democrats still argue that it was justified. The left found a "right to privacy" that didn't exist in the Constitution to justify the murder of the unborn and a former KKK member appointed to the Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't exist in the Constitution to justify the bulldozing of National monuments. All Trump is doing is settling a long disputed part of the 14th Amendment.

 

[OldLady]

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

"Under current policy, anyone born in the U.S. – regardless of whether they are delivered by a non-citizen or undocumented immigrant – is considered a citizen. The interpretation has been blamed for so-called 'birth tourism' and chain migration.

The 14th 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."

I hope he does! It should end. It would end all these mothers having babies in our country and then leaving to go back to their country. Then coming back as they complain, "My baby was born here in the US, so that makes me a citizen, too!"

We need to do something to stop the flow of these illegals coming here. They are taking advantage of our resources. We have enough hard time trying to take care of our own. Nevermind someone's child from another country. Especially, when the parents come here illegally.

I agree it should end, but I don't think you can change a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. Does Trump actually have lawyers over there? Aren't you supposed to propose another Amendment in order to change or eliminate one?

Yup, that's what many of us thought.
A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations

I am rather embarrassed for you posting the link.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It's not true?

 

[mudwhistle]

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
RECONSTRUCTION

Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865 left his successor, President Andrew Johnson, to preside over the complex process of incorporating former Confederate states back into the Union after the Civil War and establishing former slaves as free and equal citizens.

Johnson, a Democrat (and former slaveholder) from Tennessee, supported emancipation, but he differed greatly from the Republican-controlled Congress in his view of how Reconstruction should proceed. Johnson showed relative leniency toward the former Confederate states as they were reintroduced into the Union.

But many northerners were outraged when the newly elected southern state legislatures—largely dominated by former Confederate leaders—enacted black codes, which were repressive laws that strictly regulated the behavior of black citizens and effectively kept them dependent on white planters.
ADVERTISEMENT
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

In creating the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress was using the authority given it to enforce the newly ratified 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and protect the rights of black Americans.

Johnson vetoed the bill, and though Congress successfully overrode his veto and made it into law in April 1866—the first time in history that Congress overrode a presidential veto of a major bill—even some Republicans thought another amendment was necessary to provide firm constitutional grounds for the new legislation.
THADDEUS STEVENS

In late April, Representative Thaddeus Stevens introduced a plan that combined several different legislative proposals (civil rights for blacks, how to apportion representatives in Congress, punitive measures against the former Confederate States of America and repudiation of Confederate war debt), into a single constitutional amendment. After the House and Senate both voted on the amendment by June 1866, it was submitted to the states for ratification.

President Johnson made clear his opposition to the 14th Amendment as it made its way through the ratification process, but Congressional elections in late 1866 gave Republicans veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

Southern states also resisted, but Congress required them to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments as a condition of regaining representation in Congress, and the ongoing presence of the Union Army in the former Confederate states ensured their compliance.

On July 9, 1868, Louisiana and South Carolina voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, making up the necessary two-thirds majority.
14TH AMENDMENT – SECTION 1

The opening sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment defined U.S. citizenship: “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.”

This clearly repudiated the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that a black man, even if born free, could not claim rights of citizenship under the federal constitution.

Section 1’s next clause was: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This greatly expanded the civil and legal rights of all American citizens by protecting them from infringement by the states as well as by the federal government.

The third clause, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” expanded the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states as well as the federal government.

Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.) as well as the right to privacy and other fundamental rights not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.

Finally, the “equal protection clause” (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) was clearly intended to stop state governments from discriminating against black Americans, and over the years would play a key role in many landmark civil rights cases.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
14TH AMENDMENT – SECTIONS 2-5

In its later sections, the 14th Amendment authorized the federal government to punish states that violated or abridged their citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing the states’ representation in Congress, and mandated that anyone who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States could not hold civil, military or elected office (without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate).

It also upheld the national debt, but exempted federal and state governments from paying any debts incurred by the former Confederate states.

The fifth and final section of the 14th Amendment (“Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”) echoed a similar enforcement clause in the 13th Amendment.

In giving Congress power to pass laws to safeguard the sweeping provisions of Section 1, in particular, the 14th Amendment effectively altered the balance of power between the federal and state governments in the United States.

Nearly a century later, Congress would use this authority to pass landmark civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
IMPACT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

In its early decisions involving the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court often limited the application of its protections on a state and local level.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A POTUS *can* fix laws by EO (e.g. Barak the Nimrod did it on several occasions) because the Executive can determine when/why/how to enforce laws through it's agencies and thanks to Congress having deferred so much of it's Constitutional Authority to the Executive those same agencies get broad discretion on the details of how those laws look when they hit the Federal Register.

That being said, Executive Orders were never intended to "fix" or "change" existing law, it's only because they've been abused for so long that the precedent has been set and half the Partisan Sheeple accept it when *their* POTUS does it.
You don't need to hope, if Trump follows through on this EO , it's GUARANTEED to be challenged in Court.

And blown out of the water once and for all.

Don't count on it, I would say that the chances are more than good that a SCOTUS decision will go against Trump given the social ramifications of upholding such an EO.

Nope. The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to include children of illegals. It's original intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves in a counter move to head of Democrats attempts to maintain slavery in the South.

Yada Yada Yada...….The word "slave " is not in the amendment

The word slave doesn't have to be in there for it to be its intent.

What is the 14th amendment to the US constitution?

"The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868, after the American Civil War, and addresses the equal protection and rights of former slaves. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all citizens, the amendment also addresses what is called "due process", which prevents citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property."​

Then how was the issue of same sex marriage decided on the 14th?

 

[Thinker101]

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

"Under current policy, anyone born in the U.S. – regardless of whether they are delivered by a non-citizen or undocumented immigrant – is considered a citizen. The interpretation has been blamed for so-called 'birth tourism' and chain migration.

The 14th 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."

I hope he does! It should end. It would end all these mothers having babies in our country and then leaving to go back to their country. Then coming back as they complain, "My baby was born here in the US, so that makes me a citizen, too!"

We need to do something to stop the flow of these illegals coming here. They are taking advantage of our resources. We have enough hard time trying to take care of our own. Nevermind someone's child from another country. Especially, when the parents come here illegally.

I agree it should end, but I don't think you can change a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. Does Trump actually have lawyers over there? Aren't you supposed to propose another Amendment in order to change or eliminate one?

Yup, that's what many of us thought.
A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations

I am rather embarrassed for you posting the link.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It's not true?

Everything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda isn't true.

 

[Siete]

the next POTUS will kill Trumps EO's so let the old SOB want until he has a stroke ..

 

[candycorn]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

It reduces a motivation for illegal immigration. And a source of new and unwanted citizens.

And it saves we the tax payer billions each year.

Actually the exact opposite is true. I hope he tries to subvert the Constitution before the midterm. Manna from Heaven

I respectfully disagree. His base is so far gone they will NOT wake up if he tries to subvert the Constitution. They will continue to applaud because....MAGA!

Base? Perhaps. Those who held their nose and voted for him? Buh bye...depending on the alternative

 

[Claudette]

There is no upside

It reduces a motivation for illegal immigration. And a source of new and unwanted citizens.

And it saves we the tax payer billions each year.

Actually the exact opposite is true. I hope he tries to subvert the Constitution before the midterm. Manna from Heaven

I respectfully disagree. His base is so far gone they will NOT wake up if he tries to subvert the Constitution. They will continue to applaud because....MAGA!

Base? Perhaps. Those who held their nose and voted for him? Bug bye...depending on the alternative

Better him that Hitlery.

 

[OldLady]

invader noun [ C ]
UK /ɪnˈveɪ.dər/ US /ɪnˈveɪ.dɚ/
army or country that uses force to enterand take control of another country:

The foreign invaders were finally defeated by alliedforces.

In·vad·er
[inˈvādər]
NOUN

1. a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.

in·vade
/inˈvād/
verb

1. (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
   "it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
   synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, win, gain, secure; More
   • enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
     "demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
     synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundate
     "every summer, tourists invaded the beach"

Both definitions are valid. Calling people that come here illegally "invaders" is valid. Get over it.

No they're not.

 

[Flash]

No it isn't Moon Bat because the Heller and McDonald cases put the confusion about the meaning of well regulated and the silliness about the militia to rest.The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution. That is settled law now. There is no guarantee of citizen for anybody that enters this country illegally.Anything else you are confused about?

`
Thanks for your opinion but it is still just your opinion, not fact.

Heller and McDonald are both jurisprudence facts. That is settled law in the US now. Thanks to Justice Scalia the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected the same as the right of free speech and freedom of religion. That is not opinion but the law.

I am sure there are at least one confused asshole Moon Bat Libtard judge in Hawaii or someplace that would say that Trump doesn't have the right to enforce the 14th Amendment to protect the sovereignty of the US.

However, with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the Supreme court to counter the stupidity of those two ding bat assholes that Obama appointed I am sure that if a case got to the Supreme Court it would be found favorable to Trump.

If we can't enforce the sovereignty of the United States to determine citizenship and immigration then we really don't have a country, do we?

I know you idiot Moon Bats know that you have to import welfare queens in order to give the filthy Democrat Party a future voting base in order to make this country the socialist shithole that you desire but with Trump as President it ain't gonna happen. God bless Trump. MAGA!

 

[Dana7360]

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

If America doesn't have any jurisdiction over them like the 14th Amendment says then they aren't breaking any law.

If America doesn't have jurisdiction then they aren't here illegally and the nation has no authority to deport them.

If America doesn't have jurisdiction over them then NONE of our laws applies to them.

Interesting, we have people in our prisons who aren't citizens of this nation yet it was perfectly legal to prosecute them and put them in our prisons.

The 14th Amendment makes that possible.

 

[OldLady]

This could make for an interesting court case.

Some discussion at the time the Fourteenth was in the process of being ratified casts serious doubt on whether it was intended to apply to children born here of foreign citizens, especially to those here illegally. A case could be made, and could prevail, that it does not apply to children of illegal invaders.

It'd be a tough case, though. The letter of the Amendment seems fairly clear, even if the intent is otherwise. It really would be better if we could ratify a new amendment, explicitly denying birthright citizenship in such cases.

Stop calling them invaders. Anyone calling them that should have their post pulled.

I refer to them as wetback invaders...is that easier on your feels?

You're the one using "feelings," not me. I'm looking at this caravan for what it is. You are calling out the National Guard and bracing for war over a group of unarmed asylum seekers who are walking to the border, won't be here for a month and will probably amount to a few hundred people by the time they get here.
This is ALL about "feels" alright, emphasized by Trump to rile up his base prior to the midterms.

 

[BS Filter]

invader noun [ C ]
UK /ɪnˈveɪ.dər/ US /ɪnˈveɪ.dɚ/
army or country that uses force to enterand take control of another country:

The foreign invaders were finally defeated by alliedforces.

In·vad·er
[inˈvādər]
NOUN

1. a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.

in·vade
/inˈvād/
verb

1. (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
   "it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
   synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, win, gain, secure; More
   • enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
     "demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
     synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundate
     "every summer, tourists invaded the beach"

Both definitions are valid. Calling people that come here illegally "invaders" is valid. Get over it.

No they're not.

You don't get to overrule dictionaries. Illegals are invaders.

 

[BS Filter]

This could make for an interesting court case.

Some discussion at the time the Fourteenth was in the process of being ratified casts serious doubt on whether it was intended to apply to children born here of foreign citizens, especially to those here illegally. A case could be made, and could prevail, that it does not apply to children of illegal invaders.

It'd be a tough case, though. The letter of the Amendment seems fairly clear, even if the intent is otherwise. It really would be better if we could ratify a new amendment, explicitly denying birthright citizenship in such cases.

Stop calling them invaders. Anyone calling them that should have their post pulled.

I refer to them as wetback invaders...is that easier on your feels?

You're the one using "feelings," not me. I'm looking at this caravan for what it is. You are calling out the National Guard and bracing for war over a group of unarmed asylum seekers who are walking to the border, won't be here for a month and will probably amount to a few hundred people by the time they get here.
This is ALL about "feels" alright, emphasized by Trump to rile up his base prior to the midterms.

They can seek asylum in numerous countries in South America where Spanish is their language.

 

[Claudette]

This could make for an interesting court case.

Some discussion at the time the Fourteenth was in the process of being ratified casts serious doubt on whether it was intended to apply to children born here of foreign citizens, especially to those here illegally. A case could be made, and could prevail, that it does not apply to children of illegal invaders.

It'd be a tough case, though. The letter of the Amendment seems fairly clear, even if the intent is otherwise. It really would be better if we could ratify a new amendment, explicitly denying birthright citizenship in such cases.

Stop calling them invaders. Anyone calling them that should have their post pulled.

I refer to them as wetback invaders...is that easier on your feels?

You're the one using "feelings," not me. I'm looking at this caravan for what it is. You are calling out the National Guard and bracing for war over a group of unarmed asylum seekers who are walking to the border, won't be here for a month and will probably amount to a few hundred people by the time they get here.
This is ALL about "feels" alright, emphasized by Trump to rile up his base prior to the midterms.

They can seek asylum in numerous countries in South America where Spanish is their language.

Yup and look how many countries they have gone through but aren't stopping until they get to our border. If they wanted asylum they could ask for at any one of those countries.

Not one of them should be allowed to step one foot in America.

 

[candycorn]

Hillary got 3M more votes than the blob

It makes for a cool consolation prize .

It also drives you people crazy and triggers the most hilarious rationalizations.

 

[mudwhistle]

No it isn't Moon Bat because the Heller and McDonald cases put the confusion about the meaning of well regulated and the silliness about the militia to rest.

The courts have also ruled on the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause:

"The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. ... To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States. -- United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
​

See also, Plyler v. Doe (1982):

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” ... No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
​

Both quotes taken from this article on the 14th amendment written by a Trump appointee to the 5th circuit court of appeals.

​

Nope. The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to include children of illegals. It's original intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves in a counter move to head of Democrats attempts to maintain slavery in the South.

This isn't true either. The application of the amendment to immigrants was discussed at the time it was written, see for example quoted passages in this post, also taken from the above article.

Sorry, that is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Nevermind the obvious difference in a legal sense of immigrants and illegal aliens.
Nothing in the 14th Amendment grants rights to criminal immigrants....only legal immigrants. You see you can't tell the difference because you feel you benefit from criminal behavior.

 

[Dana7360]

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They have already committed a crime by entering and/or remaining in the country illegally.

If the United States doesn't have jurisdiction over people who aren't here legally then all laws don't apply to them and they aren't here illegally.

For them to be here illegally the nation has to have jurisdiction over them.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

"Under current policy, anyone born in the U.S. – regardless of whether they are delivered by a non-citizen or undocumented immigrant – is considered a citizen. The interpretation has been blamed for so-called 'birth tourism' and chain migration.

The 14th 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."

I hope he does! It should end. It would end all these mothers having babies in our country and then leaving to go back to their country. Then coming back as they complain, "My baby was born here in the US, so that makes me a citizen, too!"

We need to do something to stop the flow of these illegals coming here. They are taking advantage of our resources. We have enough hard time trying to take care of our own. Nevermind someone's child from another country. Especially, when the parents come here illegally.

I agree it should end, but I don't think you can change a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. Does Trump actually have lawyers over there? Aren't you supposed to propose another Amendment in order to change or eliminate one?

Yup, that's what many of us thought.
A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations

I am rather embarrassed for you posting the link.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It's not true?

Not even remotely.

Take the NDAA that they list.

It is the 2012 NDAA, it passed in the Senate 86-13, and the House 283-136 with 190 out of 233 Repubs voting for it.

Obama threatened to veto the bill due to the indefinite detention clause added by Congress but it passed with a veto proof majority and not signing it would have stopped all money to the military in the middle of a war he did not start.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com