Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[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.

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.

You're mistaken..
Take a look at what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say on this issue:

 

[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

My money says you're the stupid one...……...

A fool and his money are soon parted

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

 

[kyzr]

Just saw the arguments for not granting citizenship to illegals under the 14th Amendment. The argument convinced me.
The intent of the amendments 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.

If you are in the country, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country.

The writers of the 14th Amendment explained that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that foreign citizens are excluded because they are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. They specifically said that births of foreign diplomats would not gain US citizenship. That is the "intent" of the 14th Amendment. SEE POST #168 ABOVE

 

[WinterBorn]

Ending birthright citizenship is the solution.

They come here illegally, have children here, and then live large collecting welfare in the names of their children, since the children are beneficiaries of birthright citizenship. We're broke!

Welfare is not why we are broke. If you want to insist that illegals cannot gain citizenship by having children here, go for it. But don't claim that welfare (for citizens and illegals) is why we are broke.

 

[busybee01]

When UN ambassadors and their spouses have children on US soil, are they citizens?

If they are not, then clearly there are exceptions.

Those exceptions are clearly laid out.

 

[kyzr]

 

[busybee01]

Just saw the arguments for not granting citizenship to illegals under the 14th Amendment. The argument convinced me.
The intent of the amendments 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.

If you are in the country, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country.

The writers of the 14th Amendment explained that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that foreign citizens are excluded because they are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. They specifically said that births of foreign diplomats would not gain US citizenship. That is the "intent" of the 14th Amendment. SEE POST #168 ABOVE

Anyone who is in this country is subject to the laws of the county, state, and country. If Americans go to another country, they are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. No one is claiming that births of foreign diplomats and their families make their offspring US citizens.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He gets away with it cause you people are fucking stupid.

That doesn't make any sense. He is just being himself. He has always acted this way. Don't try to blame other people for Trump's behavior. He gets away with it because you like the things he says, and so do his 30 million other surrogate mommies. That's a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They claim it can be interpreted differently because todays needs are different than they were yesterday.

That certainly isn't the providence of liberals. In fact, it's why we have a Supreme Court. It's why unlimited dark money in politics is constitutionally protected. And it's why, when the horrible citizens united ruling is overturned or subrogated, it won't be constitutionally protected.

When I google "the Constitution as a living document" it is the left who is making that claim.

Mark

You mean, it's only the left being honest about it.

 

[kyzr]

Just saw the arguments for not granting citizenship to illegals under the 14th Amendment. The argument convinced me.
The intent of the amendments 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.

If you are in the country, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country.

The writers of the 14th Amendment explained that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that foreign citizens are excluded because they are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. They specifically said that births of foreign diplomats would not gain US citizenship. That is the "intent" of the 14th Amendment. SEE POST #168 ABOVE

Anyone who is in this country is subject to the laws of the county, state, and country. If Americans go to another country, they are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. No one is claiming that births of foreign diplomats and their families make their offspring US citizens.

Please re-read the post #168 highlighted portion again. The intent of the 14th specifically excludes foreigners and aliens.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If the Supreme Court can give a single phrase by Thomas Jefferson, taken out-of-context yet declared as the official intent, the weight of Constitutional authority, it can certainly do the same with the words of the author of the 14th, where the context is clear.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Too bad they did not put that part in the Constitution.

 

[Darkwind]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios
dment
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 would reccomend reading what the framer of the 14th Amendment meant when he drafted the Amendment.

Interestingly enough, Mark Levin has a Constitutional take on this that argues that illegals are foreign influenced not a US influences people and therefore do not have a 14th amendment protection.

Regardless, no President of the United States can overturn a Constitutional Amendment with an EO/EA.

However, birthright citizenship can be challenged in court.

 

[Darkwind]

Too bad they did not put that part in the Constitution.

It is part of the Consitution. It is the 14th Amendment.

 

[Natural Citizen]

don't claim that welfare (for citizens and illegals) is why we are broke.

Don't spin my words.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Too bad they did not put that part in the Constitution.

Neither is "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Yet in 1948 it was added in invisible ink by that Court.

 

[deanrd]

Now let me tell you what is hilarious here.

Republicans want to end citizenship through birth so they can increase the number of white people coming here and decrease the number of brown and black people who are citizens.
These Republicans are assuming that there are millions of white people who are just dying to come into the United States.

Now let me ask you a couple of questions.

First, where would they be coming from and why would they even want to leave where they are at?

Second, who would be willing to want to come to this country and live in polluted Red State economic basket cases with a bunch of ignorant and armed deplorables? After all, you don't want to live with your kids by such people. They kill elderly and unarmed Jews in their place of worship. They believe an orange monster. They are fond of Nazi's. And you can never believe a word they say.

You see what I mean?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Too bad they did not put that part in the Constitution.

It is part of the Consitution. It is the 14th Amendment.

Not the part highlighted.

 

[Thinker101]

Now let me tell you what is hilarious here.

Republicans want to end citizenship through birth so they can increase the number of white people coming here and decrease the number of brown and black people who are citizens.
These Republicans are assuming that there are millions of white people who are just dying to come into the United States.

Now let me ask you a couple of questions.

First, where would they be coming from and why would they even want to leave where they are at?

Second, who would be willing to want to come to this country and live in polluted Red State economic basket cases with a bunch of ignorant and armed deplorables? After all, you don't want to live with your kids by such people. They kill elderly and unarmed Jews in their place of worship. They believe an orange monster. They are fond of Nazi's. And you can never believe a word they say.

You see what I mean?

WTF, you worried you'll have to clean your own toilet, mow your own lawn...dumbass.

 

[80zephyr]

If those who believe that the 14th Amendment shows no distinction between who is ruled a citizen and who is not, how come American Indians born in the US were not US citizens?

Mark