Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[The Original Tree]

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.

They are Invaders. They are criminal pieces of shit who want my Grandma's Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security Dollars for NOTHING.

Talk about throwing Grandma from The Cliff just to give some Bad Hombres her social services dollars, and put this country deeper in debt. In fact, the amount of money we have spent on Illegal Immigration and fighting poverty caused by it EQUALS our National Debt.

So It is a planned Invasion. They "these people" actually have a strategy of overwhelming the US with illegal immigration. They actually want Texas, Nevada, and California back.



UNDECLARED WAR

 

[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

SCOTUS Baby! Hang on to your pussyhat.

It will be interesting to see how the two new justices I strongly supported rule on this


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Claudette]

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

They were stupid enough to vote for him
They believe anything he rants about

No. We were smart enough to vote for him.

You were dumb enough to vote for Hitlery.

I for one sure hope he can change the 14th and get rid of the anchor babies.

You voted for a Birther
Doesn’t get dumber than that

Nope. I voted for a man who knows what he is doing.

You voted for an old hag who thinks of no one but herself.

You couldn't have been any dumber.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

The good news is that the "conservatives" on the Court will interpret the 14th Amendment as it is written (as they should), rather than based on the intent. This is a great example of why I want strict constructionists on the Court. The correct decision is to first give the words of the constitution their plain meaning and only use the legislative intent to resolve ambiguities. The 14th is unambiguous. Trump's EOs should be shot down.

I still want him to do it to get the issue before Congress and the States.

.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This could make for an interesting court case.

We need look no further than United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Birthright citizenship has never even been ruled on. There's never been a judgement rendered on whether the birthright citizenship clause covers the children born to undocumented immigrants.

It's only ever been assumed. Incorrectly, to be clear. It's never even been questioned in a court.

Not only that, but "subject to the jurisdiction of" does not apply to undocumented immigrants since the U.S. never authorized their entry in the first place.

So. Go to court, present that question, and there has to be a ruling. There's never been a ruling on birthright citizenship at all.

 

[martybegan]

It’s a calculated move to open the debate.The 14th ammendment is for slaves.

`
Perhaps you should read up on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. It can be changed only by congressionnal amendment, a national constitutional convention or an amendment that can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states. An executive order doesn't cut it.

Nothing more than an opinion. This has never been argued in the federal courts to this point.

 

[martybegan]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

The good news is that the "conservatives" on the Court will interpret the 14th Amendment as it is written (as they should), rather than based on the intent. This is a great example of why I want strict constructionists on the Court. The correct decision is to first give the words of the constitution their plain meaning and only use the legislative intent to resolve ambiguities. The 14th is unambiguous. Trump's EOs should be shot down.

I still want him to do it to get the issue before Congress and the States.

.

The next question is if congress has the ability to make a law that ends birthright citizenship.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

Just like you!

 

[Claudette]

It’s a calculated move to open the debate.The 14th ammendment is for slaves.

`
Perhaps you should read up on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. It can be changed only by congressionnal amendment, a national constitutional convention or an amendment that can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states. An executive order doesn't cut it.

Nothing more than an opinion. This has never been argued in the federal courts to this point.

Yup and its about time for that argument.

These anchor babies cost we the taxpayer billions each year. Time to put an end to anchor babies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This could make for an interesting court case.

We need look no further than United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Birthright citizenship has never even been ruled on. There's never been a judgement rendered on whether the birthright citizenship clause covers the children born to undocumented immigrants.

It's only ever been assumed. Incorrectly, to be clear. It's never even been questioned in a court.

Not only that, but "subject to the jurisdiction of" does not apply to undocumented immigrants since the U.S. never authorized their entry in the first place.

I am with you. I share your believes on this topic (and many others), but let me play devil's advocate, just to show why we need to amend the 14th.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means anyone within a state's borders. Anyone who enters a state or the United States is subject to the jurisdiction. That is well-settled law.

 

[NightFox]

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.

 

[Correll]

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 would work wonderfully, if the courts don't abuse their power. Which they will.


Because the Constitution is not in question. A really stupid interpretation of it is.

 

[candycorn]

So are you guys going to be disappointed when he backs down from this threat too?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Would not change a word of your post.

Perfect!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

It's the truth. It's what they are. I know, that as a good LIbEral, you prefer lies and deceit over truth, but I am a sane person, not a LIbEral, so I'll stick with telling the truth, no matter how much it offends left wrong-wing filth such as yourself.

 

[Meathead]

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

Trump thought he could become president too. Oh how we laughed and laughed

 

[Correll]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

The good news is that the "conservatives" on the Court will interpret the 14th Amendment as it is written (as they should), rather than based on the intent. This is a great example of why I want strict constructionists on the Court. The correct decision is to first give the words of the constitution their plain meaning and only use the legislative intent to resolve ambiguities. The 14th is unambiguous. Trump's EOs should be shot down.

I still want him to do it to get the issue before Congress and the States.

.

The next question is if congress has the ability to make a law that ends birthright citizenship.

Congress won't touch it. THe libs will want to resolve this in the courts.

 

[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

 

[Correll]

So are you guys going to be disappointed when he backs down from this threat too?

If he does, yes.

 

[Claudette]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

Just like you!

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.

Would not change a word of your post.

Perfect!

I sure hope that EO works and it will be one interesting debate in the SC.