Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[Meister]

Merged

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Then why weren't Indian babies born on US soil automatically American citizens? Because they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

So, we have an example.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

No, I don't disagree with the Constitution. The left does.

Constitution Is Clearly a Living Document | HuffPost

In their view, the Constitution can be "interpreted" to fit the needs of todays society.

Please tell me you knew this.

Mark

 

[Faun]

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

Reservations are domestic sovereign nations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Rule #1 applies:

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

Rule #1 applies to you.

Every argument you make is a misrepresentation, fabrication or bald faced lie.

"Rule #1 applies to you.

Every argument you make is a misrepresentation, fabrication or bald faced lie."


Me?????? I never lie.

OK....maybe when I've said "just kidding."



But.....

I'm more than happy to make that a challenge....or, to put it more accurately, ram those words back down your lying throat......

.....I demand you find any "misrepresentations, fabrications or bald faced lies on my part.





Here are some examples of "misrepresentations, fabrications or bald faced lies" by your side....



More people killed in the name of religion than political ideology

War on women

Rape Culture in Colleges

Unequal Pay for Women

Bill Clinton's 'Surplus'

Europeans committed genocide against Indians/

Environmentalism is science based.

Guns are the cause of the San Bernardino and Orlando massacres.

Liberal welfare policy solves the problem of poverty.

The Obama administration has a robust vetting process to cover the Muslims he is bringing in.

The world is facing an overpopulation problem.

Abortion isn't killing a human being.

Democrats got women the right to vote.

“Hands Up Don’t Shoot!”

'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'”

“’more black men languish in prison in America than attend college.”

Doctors Choose Amputation Because Surgeons Get Paid More Than Physicians

'Islam has been Woven into the Fabric of our Country Since its Founding'

“Obama: 'I Didn't Have Scandals.'

“There is no spying on Americans.”

“Obama In Paris: Mass Shootings Don’t Happen In Other Countries….




Your turn......

 

[80zephyr]

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).

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

 

[Faun]

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

No, I don't disagree with the Constitution. The left does.

Constitution Is Clearly a Living Document | HuffPost

In their view, the Constitution can be "interpreted" to fit the needs of todays society.

Please tell me you knew this.

Mark

I don’t believe anything on Huffington post.

Meanwhile, as you’ve been shown, the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Deny it at your own ignorance; you’ve been edified.

 

[80zephyr]

Yeah porn is covered in the first. Back then you had to go to a bar to see a wenches tits today pornhub can do that. Same concept though. Those that show and those that watch.

I’m sure if they had AR-15’s that son of a bitch would have been mentioned specifically as a right to own. They had the top of the line weapons of war for the period and made no distinction between those or any other arms.

Without intent you can make it say anything you can dream up. As written and as intended is how it needs to be.

Who fucked up the 14th? The writers or the assholes that came later thinking it meant illegals? Maybe we should have stuck to what it says.

With intent you can make it say anything you can dream up, because intent is just an opinion of what someone thought 200 plus years ago.

I know a lot of people that 100% disagree that the founders intended for something like porn to be covered by the 1st. How do you prove your opinion of their intent is better than someone else opinion of their intent.

Hey Faun, here is a guy that is telling us what a "living document" is. Get it now?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

No, I don't disagree with the Constitution. The left does.

Constitution Is Clearly a Living Document | HuffPost

In their view, the Constitution can be "interpreted" to fit the needs of todays society.

Please tell me you knew this.

Mark

I don’t believe anything on Huffington post.

Meanwhile, as you’ve been shown, the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Deny it at your own ignorance; you’ve been edified.

Sigh. Maybe if you read a little, you would see what a living document means to the left.

The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

From the link:

Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living Constitution. Our written Constitution, the document under glass in the National Archives, was adopted 220 years ago. It can be amended, but the amendment process is very difficult. The most important amendments were added to the Constitution almost a century and a half ago, in the wake of the Civil War, and since that time many of the amendments have dealt with relatively minor matters.


Meanwhile, the world has changed in incalculable ways. The nation has grown in territory and its population has multiplied several times over. Technology has changed, the international situation has changed, the economy has changed, social mores have changed, all in ways that no one could have foreseen when the Constitution was drafted. And it is just not realistic to expect the cumbersome amendment process to keep up with these changes.


So it seems inevitable that the Constitution will change, too. It is also a good thing, because an unchanging Constitution would fit our society very badly. Either it would be ignored or, worse, it would be a hindrance, a relic that keeps us from making progress and prevents our society from working in the way it should.

Get it now?

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

Reservations are domestic sovereign nations.

Wrong. Yet again.

http://blog.nativepartnership.org/what-is-tribal-sovereignty/

From the link:

For the federal government, U.S. tribal sovereignty means that Native American tribes are “domestic dependent nations” that exist within the boundaries of the U.S. and that they are wards of the U.S., even though they may operate and manage some internal tribal affairs. From the U.S. viewpoint, tribes do not exist as truly sovereign and independent nations.

Mark

 

[Faun]

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

No, I don't disagree with the Constitution. The left does.

Constitution Is Clearly a Living Document | HuffPost

In their view, the Constitution can be "interpreted" to fit the needs of todays society.

Please tell me you knew this.

Mark

I don’t believe anything on Huffington post.

Meanwhile, as you’ve been shown, the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Deny it at your own ignorance; you’ve been edified.

Sigh. Maybe if you read a little, you would see what a living document means to the left.

The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

From the link:

Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living Constitution. Our written Constitution, the document under glass in the National Archives, was adopted 220 years ago. It can be amended, but the amendment process is very difficult. The most important amendments were added to the Constitution almost a century and a half ago, in the wake of the Civil War, and since that time many of the amendments have dealt with relatively minor matters.


Meanwhile, the world has changed in incalculable ways. The nation has grown in territory and its population has multiplied several times over. Technology has changed, the international situation has changed, the economy has changed, social mores have changed, all in ways that no one could have foreseen when the Constitution was drafted. And it is just not realistic to expect the cumbersome amendment process to keep up with these changes.


So it seems inevitable that the Constitution will change, too. It is also a good thing, because an unchanging Constitution would fit our society very badly. Either it would be ignored or, worse, it would be a hindrance, a relic that keeps us from making progress and prevents our society from working in the way it should.

Get it now?

Mark

LOLOL


You rightards crack me up. I’ve been saying the Constitution is a living document because it can be amended… And what do you post? An article saying the Constitution is a living document because it can be amended.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Sweet Lindsey is really sucking hard.

why should we take the right wing seriously about life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

 

[evenflow1969]

I sure hope he is successful.

The 14th was added so the children of ex slaves would be recognized as America citizens. Its not needed anymore.

Its an issue that should have been addressed long ago.

If the illegals kids aren't American citizens then the mother is entitled to nothing.

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims! He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one. Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

 

[Claudette]

I sure hope he is successful.

The 14th was added so the children of ex slaves would be recognized as America citizens. Its not needed anymore.

Its an issue that should have been addressed long ago.

If the illegals kids aren't American citizens then the mother is entitled to nothing.

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims! He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one. Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

Bullshit.

The SC will have the case and the constitution won't be circumvented you idiot.

 

[dblack]

I sure hope he is successful.

The 14th was added so the children of ex slaves would be recognized as America citizens. Its not needed anymore.

Its an issue that should have been addressed long ago.

If the illegals kids aren't American citizens then the mother is entitled to nothing.

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims! He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one. Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

Yep. I actually think that birthright citizenship should end. But circumventing the Constitution to do so would be a mistake.

 

[evenflow1969]

I sure hope he is successful.

The 14th was added so the children of ex slaves would be recognized as America citizens. Its not needed anymore.

Its an issue that should have been addressed long ago.

If the illegals kids aren't American citizens then the mother is entitled to nothing.

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims! He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one. Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

Bullshit.

The SC will have the case and the constitution won't be circumvented you idiot.

I am not the one saying it will work. You are the one saying you hope it does. So sit and spin bitch!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims!

the left has already achieved this, hate laws to circumvent the first amendment, gun control to circumvent the 2nd, ripping American babies out of the womb while pretending foreign children being separated from adults at the border is the outrage...etc. etc.

He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one.

lol...this is already what Nancy Pelosi has publicly called for, she even said it is time to go down that slippery slope, perhaps because you are such a genius you did not recognize that you have it backwards, it is this slippery slope that justifies trumps attempt to get out ahead of his skis

Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

That is why you never go down the slippery slope, and why you start at the beginning and call out the nancy pelosi's of the world when they say it is time to do so and then allowed to remain in charge of their party...until the left is dealt with first on this matter you can expect the matter to continue unabated by both sides.

 

[dudmuck]

In Article I Section 1 of the Constitution, it is clear that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress.

An Executive Order is not legislation, it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, they have used for a long time.

The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are necessary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution.

Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employees of the Executive Branch of government.

It has been a precedent for a President to issue Executive Orders that he deems to be necessary and proper.

The “Necessary and Proper” clause in the Constitution found in Article I Section 8 was not intended to give Congress the authority to do whatever they felt was a good idea. This clause meant that they had the authority to pass any legislation that was necessary and proper to implement the powers delegated to the United States in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section 1. Whenever the President issues an Executive Order that extends to all of the people, Congress and the states have a responsibility to the people to reject them.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
----------------------------------
so, that was back in 2011.
Does the same still apply today?

 

[caddo kid]

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

unless he does it through the proper channels (ie congress) this is pointless. EO's were never meant to be this far reaching.

I FAIL to understand how Trump supporters are SO STUPID to continue to support such idiocy from Trump.

Trump sits there with a news crew claiming he can get rid of parts of Amendments utilizing an EO.

For fvcks sake Trump supporters: YOU assholes are supporting a complete fvcking moron that obviously never attended a basic fvcking CIVICS class.

 

[caddo kid]

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.

Why don't you write Der Fuhrer Orange Cheeto & ask him WHY IN HELL he never attended a fvcking civics class?