Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Thank you. Very informative. However, if this is intended to somehow prove that the amendment was intended to only apply to former slaves, it fails.

 

[Faun]

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.

He can sign the Executive Order, it’s still going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

why do you hate America so much?
please explain

I don’t hate America just because you’re too ignorant to understand the Constitution.

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.​

Bull. YOu libs don't need a reason to hate America, you just do.

LOLOL

You’re sooo fucking deranged, you make me laugh.

(at you)

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Which illustrates the ignorance and stupidity of Trump’s ‘EO.’

For example, will the order have a provision to retroactively take from citizens their citizenship whose parents were not citizens, in essence an ex post facto provision clearly prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

This wrongheaded idiocy of ‘revoking’ the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is Trump yet again throwing red meat to his moronic supporters in a desperate effort to avoid Democrats winning control of the House this November.

So when do you suggest this ignorant policy stop? Can we stop it today? Or are we stuck with it forever?

The founding fathers gave us the system to change the Constitution, it should be used.

To ignore one part of the Constitution, is to piss on the whole thing

Most liberal states try their best to ignore the second. How about we just go with the original intent and call it a day.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It was created 79 years after the 2nd, so if age is what matters, you should be pushing for the 13 before it to be ignored as well.



The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

That is what should happen to the 14th if you feel it is no longer valid.

You cannot just pick and choose which ones you want to ignore on any given day.

The 2nd amendment is not a circumstantial amendment, it is in the fucking Bill of Rights.

The 14th was nothing more than a method to assuage guilt from the Dred Scott v Sandford decision.

This is just yet another anti-intellectual argument that Democrats pulled out of their ass that you were duped by.

I actually agree with you about the 14th, but that still does not give us the right to just ignore it.

The founding fathers gave us a system to alter the Constitution.

To not use it is to piss on their graves and the Constitution itself,

What happened to that "living document" bullshit the left keeps insisting is constitutional?

Mark

That's only for when THEY do it.

If it weren't for double standards, libs would have no standards at all.

Dayam, are you ever ignorant. There’s no double standard. No one here on the left is saying the Constitution isn’t a living document.

It’s not a living document and that’s why you’re an idiot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No changes needed to the Constitution. Citizenship is granted to babies born to legal residents who are living here UNDER THE LAWS IF THE UNITED STATES. Illegals don’t meet that requirement. Send them home.

They dont'?

So, if a illegal alien kills someone, they are not under our laws?

As citizens of say Mexico they still have their home country embassy they can appeal to for help. Same as any US citizen in Mexico accused of a crime. But if you’re a US citizen in Mexico none of your kids born there are Mexican citizens.

This is true, we are different than Mexico.

And again, I am do not support the idea of automatic citizenship based just on birth, but the Constitution is the Constitution and we cannot choose to ignore the parts we do not like.

Do you think the 14th was intended for anchor babies? If it wasn’t then we should stop doing that. Nobody in their right mind would have voted it in thinking it meant anyone in the world could just come here and give birth to an American citizen.

Do you think the 1st was intended for pornography?

Do you think the Founding Fathers were thinking about AR-15s when the wrote the 2nd?

I do not believe in trying to figure out intent, that opens way too many doors.

The words are what they are. That is what we should go by.

If you do not like the 14, as I do not, then there is a system to get rid of it.

Choosing to ignore it is not the right answer

 

[80zephyr]

Wrong. Intent is the ONLY way to go about it. For decades the left has twisted the words in the Constitution to get a desired result. Without using intent, then the words can mean whatever we want them to. Jefferson actually knew this was going to happen.

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Unkotare]

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

It’s not supposed to, dummy.

 

[deltex1]

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

Good opportunity for the Trump conservative court to shove it up the ass of Dimms for the Kavanaugh disgrace. Ohhhh the irony.

 

[Faun]

The 2nd amendment is not a circumstantial amendment, it is in the fucking Bill of Rights.

The 14th was nothing more than a method to assuage guilt from the Dred Scott v Sandford decision.

This is just yet another anti-intellectual argument that Democrats pulled out of their ass that you were duped by.

I actually agree with you about the 14th, but that still does not give us the right to just ignore it.

The founding fathers gave us a system to alter the Constitution.

To not use it is to piss on their graves and the Constitution itself,

What happened to that "living document" bullshit the left keeps insisting is constitutional?

Mark

That's only for when THEY do it.

If it weren't for double standards, libs would have no standards at all.

Dayam, are you ever ignorant. There’s no double standard. No one here on the left is saying the Constitution isn’t a living document.

It’s not a living document and that’s why you’re an idiot.

The Constitution itself says that it is. Why on Earth would I believe an idiot like you over the Constitution...?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

 

[Lakhota]

Lindsey Graham Says He’ll Back Trump On Birthright Citizenship With Legislation

Sweet Lindsey is really sucking hard.

 

[JWBooth]

That was created fucking centuries ago before any modern technology to give the slaves official citizenship and to a lesser extent, the Native Americans.

To say that this applies to the kids of squatters today is more than insane.

Read the fucking 18th amendment and tell me that there is something there that we have to abide by as well.

It was created 79 years after the 2nd, so if age is what matters, you should be pushing for the 13 before it to be ignored as well.



The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

That is what should happen to the 14th if you feel it is no longer valid.

You cannot just pick and choose which ones you want to ignore on any given day.

9th and 10th are ignored with impunity

So, your solutoin is to join in and just ignore other parts?

What the hell is the point of having a constitution then?

To paraphrase Spooner, it has either permitted the monster under which we suffer or it is powerless to stop it.

 

[80zephyr]

That was created fucking centuries ago before any modern technology to give the slaves official citizenship and to a lesser extent, the Native Americans.

To say that this applies to the kids of squatters today is more than insane.

Read the fucking 18th amendment and tell me that there is something there that we have to abide by as well.

It was created 79 years after the 2nd, so if age is what matters, you should be pushing for the 13 before it to be ignored as well.



The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

That is what should happen to the 14th if you feel it is no longer valid.

You cannot just pick and choose which ones you want to ignore on any given day.

The 2nd amendment is not a circumstantial amendment, it is in the fucking Bill of Rights.

The 14th was nothing more than a method to assuage guilt from the Dred Scott v Sandford decision.

This is just yet another anti-intellectual argument that Democrats pulled out of their ass that you were duped by.

I actually agree with you about the 14th, but that still does not give us the right to just ignore it.

The founding fathers gave us a system to alter the Constitution.

To not use it is to piss on their graves and the Constitution itself,

What happened to that "living document" bullshit the left keeps insisting is constitutional?

Mark

Who said it’s not still a living document?

If true, then Trump can do what he wants.

Mark

 

[BrokeLoser]

There’s a tale being told in this thread.
Please take note of all the folks who are begging for the US to continue letting Mexico fuck us blind...why would you think that is? Could it be that we’ve been nice for far too long and let too many of “THEM” in? How many posting here now are anchors themselves? Do you see where the inevitable leads us if we stay on this trajectory?
Why wouldn’t every American be cheering the President on for having the balls to finally challenge the bullshit that has been benefiting Mexico while fucking over good Americans....Does anyone sane really believe that was the intent of the 14th?

 

[Faun]

It was created 79 years after the 2nd, so if age is what matters, you should be pushing for the 13 before it to be ignored as well.



The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

That is what should happen to the 14th if you feel it is no longer valid.

You cannot just pick and choose which ones you want to ignore on any given day.

The 2nd amendment is not a circumstantial amendment, it is in the fucking Bill of Rights.

The 14th was nothing more than a method to assuage guilt from the Dred Scott v Sandford decision.

This is just yet another anti-intellectual argument that Democrats pulled out of their ass that you were duped by.

I actually agree with you about the 14th, but that still does not give us the right to just ignore it.

The founding fathers gave us a system to alter the Constitution.

To not use it is to piss on their graves and the Constitution itself,

What happened to that "living document" bullshit the left keeps insisting is constitutional?

Mark

Who said it’s not still a living document?

If true, then Trump can do what he wants.

Mark

Sure he can ... and when he signs an executive order that violates the Constitution like this one, the Supreme Court will squash it like a conservative on the windshield of an 18-wheeler.

 

[80zephyr]

The 2nd amendment is not a circumstantial amendment, it is in the fucking Bill of Rights.

The 14th was nothing more than a method to assuage guilt from the Dred Scott v Sandford decision.

This is just yet another anti-intellectual argument that Democrats pulled out of their ass that you were duped by.

I actually agree with you about the 14th, but that still does not give us the right to just ignore it.

The founding fathers gave us a system to alter the Constitution.

To not use it is to piss on their graves and the Constitution itself,

What happened to that "living document" bullshit the left keeps insisting is constitutional?

Mark

Who said it’s not still a living document?

If true, then Trump can do what he wants.

Mark

Sure he can ... and when he signs an executive order that violates the Constitution like this one, the Supreme Court will squash it like a conservative on the windshield of an 18-wheeler.

So then its not a living document.

Mark

 

[Faun]

I actually agree with you about the 14th, but that still does not give us the right to just ignore it.

The founding fathers gave us a system to alter the Constitution.

To not use it is to piss on their graves and the Constitution itself,

What happened to that "living document" bullshit the left keeps insisting is constitutional?

Mark

Who said it’s not still a living document?

If true, then Trump can do what he wants.

Mark

Sure he can ... and when he signs an executive order that violates the Constitution like this one, the Supreme Court will squash it like a conservative on the windshield of an 18-wheeler.

So then its not a living document.

Mark

LOLOL

I just posted the text from the Constitution itself where it details the process for amending it — and you’re still ignorant??

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Right, he's just a dishonest little weasel.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s not supposed to, dummy.

Right, he's a just a 12-year old troll in a fat old man's body.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

That court case is from 1898. The issue was settled long ago. Sorry to disappoint the uneducated.

Sorry to inform you, YOU ARE WRONG! The language was never decided IF it meant territorially, or politically. There is a difference.

IF the Leftists interpretation was correct by LAW, then children born overseas to American parents would NOT be American citizens.

You doubt me?

Then show all of us in the constitution, or a supreme court decision, where it was decided or made law that they are! BOTH interpretations are at this time, in force. Why? Because the supreme court has not weighed in on EXACTLY what the constitution says when pertaining to this.

IF they were to decide as the Left wants that it meant TERRATORIAL, then without an amendment, children of Americans born outside the US, would no longer be citizens.

Now how the SC would rule is beyond ALL of our expertise, and anyone on this site who tells you different is as full of poop as a Thanksgiving turkey, lol. But the reality is-----------> it is no more than 60-40 in either direction. While the Left will tell you there is "precedent," they are blowing smoke; and most of them know it.

And for Republicans/Conservatives, what is there to lose here? SC keeps it the same way? Right back where you started from! But if they go along with Trump, the Left is LOST! So, it is either WIN, or stay even; not such a bad deal to bet on.

You now have constitutionalists reigning and having the majority on the SC. If not challenging this now, then when?

Worst case scenario is you have 4 in 10...………..4 in 10 to win, and if you lose, same boat you are in today! By my count though, it is 5 of 9, "wink!" And by the time it comes in front of the court, it might be 6 of 9, "double wink!"

Now, remember what the extrapolation is if WE win----------------> IF children born to illegals in this country are NOT citizens, then how can children who came across the border with illegals able to automatically gain citizenship, AKA DACA! And all you need is the SC to agree with this EO as being CONSTITUTIONAL, to stop the Left from changing it back WITHOUT an amendment.

Wake up, hold the House and Senate along with getting a vote in the SC on this, and YOU have just destroyed the far left. I know it, they know it, and all of you better believe it-)

 

[kyzr]

Just saw the arguments for not granting citizenship to illegals under the 14th Amendment. The argument convinced me.
The intent of the amendment's wording, as explained by the writers "excludes the children of diplomats and anyone who is a citizen of another country"

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Foreign Diplomats?

“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."

Its the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that has been misinterpreted by the government, and should be the basis for rejecting the Chinese and Russian "cottage industry" of making US anchor babies. I hope Trump succeeds in ending the "anchor baby" fiasco, because currently 1 out of every 12 births are to non-citizens and create an anchor baby. Its not changing the 14th Amendment, its correctly interpreting it.