Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[Billy_Kinetta]

The word is that President Trump will make an attempt by executive order to get rid of the travesty of anchor babies - you know what “Anchor Babies “ are, those babies born here and who automatically become citizens and worthy of all the benefits of real citizens. And then bring in a whole army of Illegals with them..

I do not think they should be granted citizenship.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, and EOs are not a part of that process.

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Strict constructionists should support that interpretation.

We need to amend it.

.

It should go through the judicial process first.

 

[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

You should try actually reading the amendment before giving us your opinion.

The Illegal Alien worshippers will challenge it, and it WILL make it to the Supreme Court where it WILL BE UPHELD.

I have read it, it is very clear.

And I am against the idea of anchor babies, but there is little grey area in the 14th.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The word is that President Trump will make an attempt by executive order to get rid of the travesty of anchor babies - you know what “Anchor Babies “ are, those babies born here and who automatically become citizens and worthy of all the benefits of real citizens. And then bring in a whole army of Illegals with them..

I do not think they should be granted citizenship.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, and EOs are not a part of that process.

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The word is that President Trump will make an attempt by executive order to get rid of the travesty of anchor babies - you know what “Anchor Babies “ are, those babies born here and who automatically become citizens and worthy of all the benefits of real citizens. And then bring in a whole army of Illegals with them..

I do not think they should be granted citizenship.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, and EOs are not a part of that process.

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Trump thought it was a great idea to delegate the DACA problem to the legislative branch. How did that work out for us?
I don't think throwing this to the judicial branch is going to work out well, either.

That is a fair point also. I am not sold that Trump really does not believe he can EO this.

He does not believe he can change it with an EO, nor is that his intent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The word is that President Trump will make an attempt by executive order to get rid of the travesty of anchor babies - you know what “Anchor Babies “ are, those babies born here and who automatically become citizens and worthy of all the benefits of real citizens. And then bring in a whole army of Illegals with them..

I do not think they should be granted citizenship.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, and EOs are not a part of that process.

Actually, citizenship isn’t ‘granted’ to an American born in the United States – no government or government official has that authority.

Only those born outside of the United States must be naturalized to become citizens.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump will issue his EO, a judge will rule it invalid, the DOJ will appeal...it will end up at the SCOTUS

`
That doesn't explain how. Do you think the DOJ, on it's own, is going to file a suit against trump?????? It doesn't work that way, sorry.

I said it would be challenged, then the DOJ would defend it.

Do you not think someone like the ACLU would not file a motion against it the minute it was signed?

 

[Doc1]

The word is that President Trump will make an attempt by executive order to get rid of the travesty of anchor babies - you know what “Anchor Babies “ are, those babies born here and who automatically become citizens and worthy of all the benefits of real citizens. And then bring in a whole army of Illegals with them..

I do not think they should be granted citizenship.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, and EOs are not a part of that process.

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not think they should be granted citizenship.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, and EOs are not a part of that process.

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

 

[Doc1]

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

LOL, you say stupid shit and get defensive when called out over it.

 

[Rustic]

True, but it will create a case that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

LOL, you say stupid shit and get defensive when called out over it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fair point. I personally believe that many people will be disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling when it comes. The wording of the 14th is not really very vague at all, to declare it not valid based upon supposed "intent" would open a door that I do not think any of us want to go down.

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

Damn, I do wish you were smart enough to see the irony of this.

Crying shame that irony is wasted on the stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So not all your rights are "God Given" ?
Right wingers make me chuckle.
Why is this amendment disposable and the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct ?

In the United States rights are inalienable – beyond the purview of governments, constitutions, and men, as codified by the 14th Amendment.

And because one’s inalienable rights manifest as a consequent of being human, an American is a citizen at birth to safeguard his inalienable rights, where the citizenship or immigration status of his parents is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is therefore consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights.

 

[Windparadox]

------------------------------------ because the EO will be denied by YOUR liberal Courts . After that happens the EO will be appealed and eventualy a case will be crafted that will get to TRUMPS Supreme Court W. P. .

`
Here's the scoop poindexter, a suit has to be filed first, not by the DOJ, (which is preposterous) but by some group like the ACLU. This will automatically go to the lower courts. An injunction delaying the implementation of such an EO is also quite possible.

The suit most likely will will be phrased to narrowly focus on this incident only, not the entire concept of "anchor babies" which blows to hell any kind of fantasy expectations the right may have for this elevating into a constitutional landmark case. The lower court, after an in determinant amount of time, will reach it's decision. If trump doesn't like like it, then he can appeal to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS can pass on it, send it back for reconsideration or just agree with the lower courts decision.

IF the high court chooses to take it, it can only rule on the narrow focus which the case has presented itself. Either way, there is no instant victory for the right, just a lot of wasted time and money.
`

 

[Rustic]

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

Damn, I do wish you were smart enough to see the irony of this.

Crying shame that irony is wasted on the stupid.

Lol
Since I’m an American Indian there is no way I trust the federal government…
I think you have missed the irony

 

[Doc1]

Many people said the same of the 2nd in 2008.

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

LOL, you say stupid shit and get defensive when called out over it.

Congratulations, I own your ass. I jerk, you react. You're just another low life son. Quit speaking out of your ass and I'll quit embarrassing you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

Damn, I do wish you were smart enough to see the irony of this.

Crying shame that irony is wasted on the stupid.

Lol
Since I’m an American Indian there is no way I trust the federal government…
I think you have missed the irony

You and Warren!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And it is still around, less gun laws now than there was then.

But if we get into where the SCOTUS rules on intent alone, the 2nd could be an easy target.

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

LOL, you say stupid shit and get defensive when called out over it.

Congratulations, I own your ass. I jerk, you react. You're just another low life son. Quit speaking out of your ass and I'll quit embarrassing you.

 

[Rustic]

Feel free to prove it Judge.

I have nothing to prove, I gave my opinion of what might happen. how can I prove what might happen if something else that has not happens yet, happens?

Crawl back under your rock

Damn, I do wish you were smart enough to see the irony of this.

Crying shame that irony is wasted on the stupid.

Lol
Since I’m an American Indian there is no way I trust the federal government…
I think you have missed the irony

You and Warren!

 

[Doc1]

------------------------------------ because the EO will be denied by YOUR liberal Courts . After that happens the EO will be appealed and eventualy a case will be crafted that will get to TRUMPS Supreme Court W. P. .

`
Here's the scoop poindexter, a suit has to be filed first, not by the DOJ, (which is preposterous) but by some group like the ACLU. This will automatically go to the lower courts. An injunction delaying the implementation of such an EO is also quite possible.

The suit most likely will will be phrased to narrowly focus on this incident only, not the entire concept of "anchor babies" which blows to hell any kind of fantasy expectations the right may have for this elevating into a constitutional landmark case. The lower court, after an in determinant amount of time, will reach it's decision. If trump doesn't like like it, then he can appeal to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS can pass on it, send it back for reconsideration or just agree with the lower courts decision.

IF the high court chooses to take it, it can only rule on the narrow focus which the case has presented itself. Either way, there is no instant victory for the right, just a lot of wasted time and money.
`

Here's the scoop poindexter. The only way you can justify "anchor babies" is to lift the 14th completely out of context (much as you do the 1st amendment). Only the pathetically immoral or the abjectly stupid think that you can lift something out of it's context and say it means what it doesn't.