Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[oreo]

You mean the proper role of checks and balances in challenging an interpretation of an Amendment?

No, I mean with no regard to Constitutonal Amendments. Something is Constitutionally protected when the SCOTUS says it is.

Actually, no that isn't how it works.

The SCOUTS says that a law is either acceptable (does not violate the limits of the Constitution) to the Constitutional limits or it is not and must be either dropped or rewritten.

The only way to change or repeal a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3/s vote in the Senate, a 2/3's vote in the house, and then it has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. The President doesn't have anything to do with it.

Constitutional Convention. Helps to read the entire fuckin document.

Your own party is telling YOU that Trump can't do it. Now if you want to continue to look like a dumbass on this board, go ahead, I am very accustomed to dealing with Trump tards.
Paul Ryan disagrees with Trump's call to end birthright citizenship, says it would be unconstitutional

You have elected a man that has the emotional stability of a teenage drama queen with a 7th grade understanding of U.S policy.
Hear the entire NYT stunning op-ed - CNN Video

 

[oreo]

Trump will prevail.

This isn't a FOXNEWS facebook page, and you're not going to get away with speaking in platitudes. So how does Trump prevail in this?

 

[oreo]

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??

Amending it does not make it the "living document" the left claims it to be. They claim it can be interpreted differently because todays needs are different than they were yesterday.

Mark

Dumbshit.... it’s a living document because it can be changed.

In ONLY two ways and it can ONLY be amended, not changed.

But the interpretations of it kind of are subject to change. Thus, SCOTUS.

One more time, the only way you can change or repeal a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3's vote in the Senate, a 2/3's vote in the house, and then it has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. The President has nothing to do with it, nor can he sign an executive order to change the Constitution.
Paul Ryan rejects Trump plan to end birthright citizenship with executive order: 'You obviously cannot do that'

"Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it."
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

 

[Leo123]

Trump will prevail.

This isn't a FOXNEWS facebook page, and you're not going to get away with speaking in platitudes. So how does Trump prevail in this?

Invaders have no birth-rights moron .

 

[AntonToo]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

 

[Leo123]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Born or nationalized does not include invaders.

 

[AntonToo]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Born or nationalized does not include invaders.

Newborn invaders?

Another fucking moron here...I guess better here than out there, shooting up jews.

 

[Darkwind]

You mean the proper role of checks and balances in challenging an interpretation of an Amendment?

No, I mean with no regard to Constitutonal Amendments. Something is Constitutionally protected when the SCOTUS says it is.

Actually, no that isn't how it works.

The SCOUTS says that a law is either acceptable (does not violate the limits of the Constitution) to the Constitutional limits or it is not and must be either dropped or rewritten.

The only way to change or repeal a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3/s vote in the Senate, a 2/3's vote in the house, and then it has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. The President doesn't have anything to do with it.

Constitutional Convention. Helps to read the entire fuckin document.

Your own party is telling YOU that Trump can't do it. Now if you want to continue to look like a dumbass on this board, go ahead, I am very accustomed to dealing with Trump tards.
Paul Ryan disagrees with Trump's call to end birthright citizenship, says it would be unconstitutional

You have elected a man that has the emotional stability of a teenage drama queen with a 7th grade understanding of U.S policy.
Hear the entire NYT stunning op-ed - CNN Video

LMFAO

My own party? Stupid fuck. I am not a Republican. In addition, Trump is not trying to rescind the 14th but is calling into question the nonsensical notion that illegals and their children born here have a 14th amendment protection.

BTW....If you knew what the fuck you were talking about, a Constitutional Convention can make amendments to the Constitution. God, you a fuckin retard.

 

[Darkwind]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Read the whole thing numbnuts.

The question arises from the fact that illegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. In order to have protections of this country, you must be a citizen and in good standing. Therefore any birth would not give birthright citizenship.

We'll see how this plays out in the courts, but Trump has the right to deport illegals and their offspring until challenged in court.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But the amendment states if your are a alien you are not protected in being an automatic citizen, even if your baby is born in USA, no citizenship.
2. They are illegal aliens for God's sake!
3. And the border crashers should get a spear rammed in their chests!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[AntonToo]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Read the whole thing numbnuts.

The question arises from the fact that illegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dumbass, Illegals, like just about everyone in the United States are ABSOLUTELY a subject to juristiction of the United States, the only ones who aren't are foreign diplomats.

An illegal can be prosecuted by the authorties of the United States - why? Because THEY'RE SUBJECT TO JURISTICTION.

A diplomat cannot be prosecuted by the authorities of the United States - why? because they aren't under our juristiciton (unless their country waives their immunity).

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Watch this happen,..its the October SURPRISE!!!
2. GO TRUMP!!!!
3. Trump said during his campaign he didn't like the whole 'anchor baby' sidestep, its coming, that's what he meant!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trump signs the executive order. ACLU sues to have it stayed. Case goes through the courts and reaches SCOTUS. 5-4 decision holding order as constitutional. Trump is going to roll the dice and see what happens in the courts. I think an amendment would be needed also. But, I also thought Obamacare was a tax.

They will ignore any executive order and call it unconstitutional. He does not have the authority to issue an executive order on a constitutional amendment. It goes nowhere, not even to the ACLU. You're confused over the Muslim ban. Any President has the right to protect this country and the reason why it was deemed unconstitutional is because he kept referring to it as a Muslim ban, which is unconstitutional. They weren't challenging an amendment to the Constitution only the wording of his executive order.

The only way to change or repeal a constitutional amendment is a 2/3's vote in the Senate, a 2/3's vote in the house and then it has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. The President has nothing to do with it.

Like Obama changing the immigration laws all by himself????



.

 

[Leo123]

Another fucking moron here...I guess better here than out there, shooting up jews.

The invaders are the adults you feckless fool. Why should invaders' children be American citizens? LEGAL immigrants SHOULD have birthrights idiot. How could you be so fucking stupid?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Born or nationalized does not include invaders.

Newborn invaders?

Another fucking moron here...I guess better here than out there, shooting up jews.

What are you worried about , Pablo?



.

 

[Leo123]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Read the whole thing numbnuts.

The question arises from the fact that illegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dumbass, Illegals, like just about everyone in the United States are ABSOLUTELY a subject to juristiction of the United States, the only ones who aren't are foreign diplomats.

An illegal can be prosecuted by the authorties of the United States - why? Because THEY'RE SUBJECT TO JURISTICTION.

A diplomat cannot be prosecuted by the authorities of the United States - why? because they aren't under our juristiciton (unless their country waives their immunity).

Invaders are NOT subject to jurisdiction mush-head.

 

[AntonToo]

Another fucking moron here...I guess better here than out there, shooting up jews.

The invaders are the adults

Birthright citizenship is for the people born here, as in just-born people, dumbass. It has nothing to do with adults who were not born here.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Ivanna wasn't an American citizen when she gave birth to her rotten crotchfruit and that makes Dumbazz Jr, Ivanka and Eric the dipshit all anchor babies. Let's send these sorry azz facists back to Czechoslovakia.

Malaria was rushed through the process and probably only had a greencard so most likely her damaged silly crotchfruit is an anchor baby too.

The more you know.

 

[AntonToo]

Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.

You don't need a constitutional amendment. There's nothing to repeal because birthright citizenship for children of illegal immmigrants does not exist in the constitution.

ENGLISH - can you read it?

Constitution 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.

It absolutely exists - DUH.

Read the whole thing numbnuts.

The question arises from the fact that illegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dumbass, Illegals, like just about everyone in the United States are ABSOLUTELY a subject to juristiction of the United States, the only ones who aren't are foreign diplomats.

An illegal can be prosecuted by the authorties of the United States - why? Because THEY'RE SUBJECT TO JURISTICTION.

A diplomat cannot be prosecuted by the authorities of the United States - why? because they aren't under our juristiciton (unless their country waives their immunity).

Invaders are NOT subject to jurisdiction mush-head.

Of course they are retard, just like everyone is in this coutry with exception of foreign diplomats.

Feckless, are you idiots, who run your mouth without knowing much of anything about the actual law.

 

[Leo123]

Birthright citizenship is for the people born here, as in just-born people, dumbass. It has nothing to do with adults who were not born here.

Invaders have no right to dump a baby and call it an American citizen dufus. How can you be so blind?