Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[Harpy Eagle]

...I guess there’s no limit to stupidity

Which is something you prove every day! You think an EO can change the Constitution.

That is a whole new level of stupid

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am getting tired of winning here. And the anti-Americans at NYT are pissed.

"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Mr. Trump told Axios during an interview that was released in part on Tuesday, making a false claim. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship - CNNPolitics

did you know there are other threads on the very same topic here; just sayin'

He replied to at least one of them and then still started a new thread.

 

[longknife]

I think he's doing it on advice from his legal team to set up action in the federal courts that will surely end up before the Supreme Court. He is hopeful the current panel will have a finding that will overturn the understanding that illegals can parent children who are legal citizens.

 

[NightFox]

The people that worship at The Alter of the Cult of Trump are too stupid to recognize that once a precedent is set re: EOs to alter Amendments, then the pooch is screwed.

LOL

Irony, it's just so goddamn delicious.

Go ahead Trumpians; let Don Cheeto alter the 14th A with an EO & guess what you'll get from some 'liberal' POTUS down the road? The 2nd A wil become your new toilet tissue.

Don't worry your little partisan lemming head about it, the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to unilaterally alter the Constitution.

 

[Rocko]

...I guess there’s no limit to stupidity

Which is something you prove every day! You think an EO can change the Constitution.

That is a whole new level of stupid

Didn’t say that. The fact that he can’t is the reason there is no cause for concern. Try doing a better job of reading between the lines next time. Dumbass

 

[Faun]

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

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

Dumbshit, Amendments can, and do, include changes.

Oh look. Another dumb fuck who doesn't understand the amendment process.

Color Me NOT surprised.

LOLOL

Moron, tell me again how amendments can’t change the Constitution...

AMENDMENT XII

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.​

Again, for those like you who have a disability to comprehend things....It does not change the Constitution. Too complex for you, I know.

Tell Me, do you still hear the lambs?

Wow, are you ever rightarded. Watch as I demonstrate...

Article I, section 4 ...

Section. 4.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.​

... Amendment XX changed the date Congress assembles from the first Monday in December to January 3rd ...

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.​

... are ya feeling stupid yet??

 

[kyzr]

I hope it gets before the USSC sooner rather than later.

The Constitution is Not a Suicide Pact : The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

The Constitution can be re-interpreted by the USSC: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
...Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."
(illegal alien invasions were not happening until recently, so judicial review of the 14th Amendment is needed to clarify if anchor babies are in the best interest of the US)

 

[Faun]

No it isn't Moon Bat because the Heller and McDonald cases put the confusion about the meaning of well regulated and the silliness about the militia to rest.

The courts have also ruled on the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause:

"The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. ... To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States. -- United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
​

See also, Plyler v. Doe (1982):

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” ... No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
​

Both quotes taken from this article on the 14th amendment written by a Trump appointee to the 5th circuit court of appeals.

​

Nope. The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to include children of illegals. It's original intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves in a counter move to head of Democrats attempts to maintain slavery in the South.

This isn't true either. The application of the amendment to immigrants was discussed at the time it was written, see for example quoted passages in this post, also taken from the above article.

Sorry, that is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Nevermind the obvious difference in a legal sense of immigrants and illegal aliens.
Nothing in the 14th Amendment grants rights to criminal immigrants....only legal immigrants. You see you can't tell the difference because you feel you benefit from criminal behavior.

The 14th Amendment is clear. The only exception it makes is for families of diplomats. Other than that, it does not say some of the people are American citizens but all of them. It says all persons born in the United States. It does not say some or everyone but.

Are you a constitutional scholar?
If not, then it is not clear.

If you read the words:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

What it means is if you fall under the jurisdiction of another country, which clearly illegal aliens do, you do not qualify. Slaves only fell under the jurisdiction of the US. No other country. You cannot be a citizen of another country and just give birth and your child be awarded US citizenship.
However, if you renounce your citizenship and apply for US citizenship and are accepted, then your child will be born a US citizen, not a naturalized citizen.

Moron, are you actually saying illegal aliens aren’t under our jurisdiction while they’re in the U.S.? Then how do we arrest them when they commit a crime other than sneaking in?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 14th amendment is absolutely clear. It is clear on its face. The way the 14th amendment is written does not make it susceptible to more than one interpretation.

Right now, we have birthright citizenship. There's no other way to view it.

The supreme court is now loaded with those who adhere to the proper rules of construction. They will only look to the intent of the legislature when there is an ambiguity. Because there is no ambiguity, the 14th amendment means what it says and says what it means.

We must go through the amendment process to end birthright citizenship.

I know it sucks, but that's the way it is.

.

 

[Faun]

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.

Oh? An illegal alien is not subject to our laws?

Lets try to read one more time, paraphrasing...the intent was to give US citizenship to the freed slaves, over the objection of some States. The intended interpretation was to include foreign born slaves, but to exclude foreign born citizens of other countries:
"This will not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, or aliens, or families of ambassadors."

View attachment 225860

Most other countries in the world do not give citizenship to births other than by citizens. It has created a cottage industry for Chinese and Russians and others that may not have US interests at heart, 1 in 12 births are by illegals/foreigners.

LOL

Look how the rightie lies. Howard didn’t say, ”This will not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, OR aliens, OR families of ambassadors.”

He said, ”This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

 

[Faun]

How do you prove your opinion of their intent is better than someone else opinion of their intent.

You prove it by asking the 9 black robed dictators on the Supreme Court what their opinion of the intent is.

They’ve already given their opinion on the matter; and their opinion is that even babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are U.S. citizens...

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

 

[Lesh]

This whole thing is a stupid distraction.

No one with a brain thinks that what the Orange Blotus is claiming is possible or legal

 

[NightFox]

How do you prove your opinion of their intent is better than someone else opinion of their intent.

You prove it by asking the 9 black robed dictators on the Supreme Court what their opinion of the intent is.

They’ve already given their opinion on the matter; and their opinion is that even babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are U.S. citizens...

****** WHHHHHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHHH*******

# we now return you to your regularly scheduled chain of non sequiturs #

 

[80zephyr]

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??

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.

I disagree. Apparently, you don't understand that the left believes that the document can be "interpreted" to warp and twist the meaning of the document to fit their agenda, all without an amendment? That is what is meant by a "living" document.

Mark

 

[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

Because Indian tribes are sovereign nations.

And? Is China a sovereign nation? If an American Indian baby can be born on American soil without becoming an American, then why should a Chinese be able to?

Mark

I think you missed the point. American Indians born of Tribal parents who have a child in an American hospital are not considered US citizens. They are foreign nationals who just happen to have had a baby on our soil. They are 'influenced' by another country. In America, the American Indian on his or her tribal land is a foreigner. I do think they have special dispensation though. I'd have to look that up.

A Chinese national giving birth on US soil means the child is a Chinese national.

Nope. The Indians were granted citizenship in 1924. As for their "sovereignty" it is limited to a type of self government. Even on a reservation, it was always understood that they were in fact born on US soil.

So, if the 14th Amendment says what the left says it does, those Indians should have automatically been citizens at birth,

Mark

 

[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

Stupid , archaic racism. Next softball...

Translation?

Mark

Q, you: "how come American Indians born in the US were not US citizens?"

A, me: "Stupid , archaic racism. "

Nope. Our treaties with the Indians allowed them their autonomy. Even if citizenship were offered, I doubt they would have been interested.

Mark

 

[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

Because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Why not? They were born on American soil?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

No. He didn’t. And the only people that believe that are Trumpanzees.

Moot point. With a week before the election, only Trumpanzees care about the caravan. Nobody else, and that includes the majority of women, independents, seniors, minorities, and young voters do.

It’s all about healthcare, and Republicans taking it away, cutting social security and Medicare, and giving tax cuts to billionaires, that they don’t agree with, and curiously enough, Republicans are not running on.

LMAO you suck at math fool. Hillary won 4 million more votes in California, Trump won the other 49 states by 1 million votes. Tissue?

Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a mere accumulated vote total of 76K votes coming out of 3 rust belt, while HIllary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million.

And we all know that the goal posts were moved on Hillary Clinton's side of the field.

Former FBI director James Comey broke long standing DOJ protocol on 3 different occasions. The 3rd being the worst. Comey broke long standing DOJ protocol of not releasing any information within 60 days of an election. 11 days before the election and after being warned by officials, he release information anyway while millions of Americans were voting believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. Seven days later he gave birth to his nothing burger.
Eric Holder and 100 other former Justice officials sign letter blasting Comey's 'breach of protocol'
Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy

James Clapper, National Intelligence director is on record stating it is impossible to believe that Vladimir Putin didn't change the outcome of the election. For more details on this redirect to this post on this board by clicking this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

More information on the Russian adds that were inundated on Facebook and shared by millions.
Analysis | These are the most popular stealth Russian Facebook ads from each month

Making Trump the most illegitimate President to ever be sworn into office.

 

[80zephyr]

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

No. He didn’t. And the only people that believe that are Trumpanzees.

Moot point. With a week before the election, only Trumpanzees care about the caravan. Nobody else, and that includes the majority of women, independents, seniors, minorities, and young voters do.

It’s all about healthcare, and Republicans taking it away, cutting social security and Medicare, and giving tax cuts to billionaires, that they don’t agree with, and curiously enough, Republicans are not running on.

LMAO you suck at math fool. Hillary won 4 million more votes in California, Trump won the other 49 states by 1 million votes. Tissue?

Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a mere accumulated vote total of 76K votes coming out of 3 rust belt, while HIllary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million.

And we all know that the goal posts were moved on Hillary Clinton's side of the field.

Former FBI director James Comey broke long standing DOJ protocol on 3 different occasions. The 3rd being the worst. Comey broke long standing DOJ protocol of not releasing any information within 60 days of an election. 11 days before the election and after being warned by officials, he release information anyway while millions of Americans were voting believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. Seven days later he gave birth to his nothing burger.
Eric Holder and 100 other former Justice officials sign letter blasting Comey's 'breach of protocol'
Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy

James Clapper, National Intelligence director is on record stating it is impossible to believe that Vladimir Putin didn't change the outcome of the election. For more details on this redirect to this post on this board by clicking this link.
Do You Believe Based on Evidence, Russia Changed Outcome of 2016 Election

More information on the Russian adds that were inundated on Facebook and shared by millions.
Analysis | These are the most popular stealth Russian Facebook ads from each month

Making Trump the most illegitimate President to ever be sworn into office.

 

[Faun]

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??

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.

I disagree. Apparently, you don't understand that the left believes that the document can be "interpreted" to warp and twist the meaning of the document to fit their agenda, all without an amendment? That is what is meant by a "living" document.

Mark

Holyfuckingshit!

You disagree with the Constitution?

Amendment XX
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment.​

modify

3a : to make minor changes in

b : to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end