Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[Redfish]

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

I'm late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

I agree and I'm wondering why no one has ever challenged this. It should have been done years ago.

The United States Supreme Court is made up of attorneys approved by the American Bar Association (the ABA.) It is the most liberal organization in the United States save of the Communist Party USA.

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court is made up of Jews and Catholics. They are in no hurry to change standing precedents and break up families over minor immigration infractions. Their commitment to keeping families together is a bit more pro-family than anti-immigrant.

Finally, changing standing precedents is not a popular subject. It's how we changed from a Republic to a Democracy. The United States Supreme Court would rule one way, public opinion would change and the high Court would change their own precedents to appease the public. George Washington (in his Farewell Address) warned against this practice:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

...If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

that's all well and good, but the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted for years, we need to correct that and the only way is to bring a case before the SC. that needs to happen soon, and I think we are moving in that direction.

 

[evenflow1969]

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment.

and like the typical liberal you "pretend something else is the point" and that that is what we are talking about...I would tell you to go back and look at my post for your answer but I will save you the trouble...
My claim is that they circumvented the 1st with hate speech laws, that is what I claimed, you needed to reword it so you could pretend you had a point

We do not call the press enemy of the state.

neither do enemies of the state

Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law.

And we are back to pretending that is the point.
I do agree with the ruling, but the point you are hiding from is that the left makes believe it is more outrageous to temporarily separate [or as you probably prefer "ripped"] non-American children from adults being arrested [or otherwise taken into custody of some sort] than it is to rip them from the womb...ROE V WADE was just another way for you to pretend something else was the point being made.

This is the way our government is designed.

You will need to keep that in mind in the future

When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution.

When she claimed it was necessary to go down the slippery slope to enact stricter gun laws...it that is true will you admit that is what she is doing? if not then why even disagree with me?

By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree.

you mean the make believe standards you assigned to me and that if the ballot box gets it wrong you should be allowed to remove the president simply cuz ya saw it in the fake news media?

As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

And none of that [especially the ones where gop went along] means gun control is not circumventing the constitution, in fact the only thing it means is if you can justify those actions and not admit to hypocrisy then trump is just as justified as you are...that's what makes it a slippery slope genius.

You are the one pretending. Your pres does not call the press enemy of the state? What hate speech law are you talking about. Kinda funny when asked for examples you can not give one just speek in generalities. You want to keep my attention give me the law, name it. None of what you are talking about circumveted the process as it was designed. Give me the Pelosi quote! Back your shit up or be ignored.

 

[Redfish]

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment.

and like the typical liberal you "pretend something else is the point" and that that is what we are talking about...I would tell you to go back and look at my post for your answer but I will save you the trouble...
My claim is that they circumvented the 1st with hate speech laws, that is what I claimed, you needed to reword it so you could pretend you had a point

We do not call the press enemy of the state.

neither do enemies of the state

Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law.

And we are back to pretending that is the point.
I do agree with the ruling, but the point you are hiding from is that the left makes believe it is more outrageous to temporarily separate [or as you probably prefer "ripped"] non-American children from adults being arrested [or otherwise taken into custody of some sort] than it is to rip them from the womb...ROE V WADE was just another way for you to pretend something else was the point being made.

This is the way our government is designed.

You will need to keep that in mind in the future

When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution.

When she claimed it was necessary to go down the slippery slope to enact stricter gun laws...it that is true will you admit that is what she is doing? if not then why even disagree with me?

By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree.

you mean the make believe standards you assigned to me and that if the ballot box gets it wrong you should be allowed to remove the president simply cuz ya saw it in the fake news media?

As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

And none of that [especially the ones where gop went along] means gun control is not circumventing the constitution, in fact the only thing it means is if you can justify those actions and not admit to hypocrisy then trump is just as justified as you are...that's what makes it a slippery slope genius.

You are the one pretending. Your pres does not call the press enemy of the state? What hate speech law are you talking about. Kinda funny when asked for examples you can not give one just speek in generalities. You want to keep my attention give me the law, name it. None of what you are talking about circumveted the process as it was designed. Give me the Pelosi quote! Back your shit up or be ignored.

he calls the media the enemy of the people because they are. most of the media in nothing more than the propaganda arm of the dem/lib party. we might as well rename them Pravda.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment.

and like the typical liberal you "pretend something else is the point" and that that is what we are talking about...I would tell you to go back and look at my post for your answer but I will save you the trouble...
My claim is that they circumvented the 1st with hate speech laws, that is what I claimed, you needed to reword it so you could pretend you had a point

We do not call the press enemy of the state.

neither do enemies of the state

Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law.

And we are back to pretending that is the point.
I do agree with the ruling, but the point you are hiding from is that the left makes believe it is more outrageous to temporarily separate [or as you probably prefer "ripped"] non-American children from adults being arrested [or otherwise taken into custody of some sort] than it is to rip them from the womb...ROE V WADE was just another way for you to pretend something else was the point being made.

This is the way our government is designed.

You will need to keep that in mind in the future

When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution.

When she claimed it was necessary to go down the slippery slope to enact stricter gun laws...it that is true will you admit that is what she is doing? if not then why even disagree with me?

By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree.

you mean the make believe standards you assigned to me and that if the ballot box gets it wrong you should be allowed to remove the president simply cuz ya saw it in the fake news media?

As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

And none of that [especially the ones where gop went along] means gun control is not circumventing the constitution, in fact the only thing it means is if you can justify those actions and not admit to hypocrisy then trump is just as justified as you are...that's what makes it a slippery slope genius.

You are the one pretending. Your pres does not call the press enemy of the state? What hate speech law are you talking about. Kinda funny when asked for examples you can not give one just speek in generalities. You want to keep my attention give me the law, name it. None of what you are talking about circumveted the process as it was designed. Give me the Pelosi quote! Back your shit up or be ignored.

he calls the media the enemy of the people because they are. most of the media in nothing more than the propaganda arm of the dem/lib party. we might as well rename them Pravda.

 

[NightFox]

Exactly, so they are in fact under the jurisdiction of the US.

You along with many others are assuming that being subject to the laws of the United States constitutes jurisdiction of, the framers of the 14th Amendment and the Congress that passed it weren't so simplistic in their definition of the phrase.

For example John Bingham (one of the framers of the 14th Amendment) defined it along more absolute lines, in other words jurisdiction of being confined to those whose parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, i.e. parents that aren't citizens of some other country.

That doesn't mean the modern SCOTUS would see it that way but the question of the meaning of that phrase isn't as simplistic as some here are trying to portray it.

Anywho.. if this EO ever comes to pass (I suspect that it won't) it'll make for a very interesting SCOTUS case.

 

[evenflow1969]

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment.

and like the typical liberal you "pretend something else is the point" and that that is what we are talking about...I would tell you to go back and look at my post for your answer but I will save you the trouble...
My claim is that they circumvented the 1st with hate speech laws, that is what I claimed, you needed to reword it so you could pretend you had a point

We do not call the press enemy of the state.

neither do enemies of the state

Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law.

And we are back to pretending that is the point.
I do agree with the ruling, but the point you are hiding from is that the left makes believe it is more outrageous to temporarily separate [or as you probably prefer "ripped"] non-American children from adults being arrested [or otherwise taken into custody of some sort] than it is to rip them from the womb...ROE V WADE was just another way for you to pretend something else was the point being made.

This is the way our government is designed.

You will need to keep that in mind in the future

When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution.

When she claimed it was necessary to go down the slippery slope to enact stricter gun laws...it that is true will you admit that is what she is doing? if not then why even disagree with me?

By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree.

you mean the make believe standards you assigned to me and that if the ballot box gets it wrong you should be allowed to remove the president simply cuz ya saw it in the fake news media?

As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

And none of that [especially the ones where gop went along] means gun control is not circumventing the constitution, in fact the only thing it means is if you can justify those actions and not admit to hypocrisy then trump is just as justified as you are...that's what makes it a slippery slope genius.

You are the one pretending. Your pres does not call the press enemy of the state? What hate speech law are you talking about. Kinda funny when asked for examples you can not give one just speek in generalities. You want to keep my attention give me the law, name it. None of what you are talking about circumveted the process as it was designed. Give me the Pelosi quote! Back your shit up or be ignored.

he calls the media the enemy of the people because they are. most of the media in nothing more than the propaganda arm of the dem/lib party. we might as well rename them Pravda.

Yep your voice is th only one that matters. All hale the dumb fuck Redfish. We should just all bow to your feet. Fuck off!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hopefully, this will end up in the laps of the Supremes, and at least we might have a chance. Probably won't fly, but there's always the possibility if it is argued right.

 

[busybee01]

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.

It does apply because illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country. I would suggest you look at Plyler vs Doe from 1982.

"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."

Plyler v. Doe

 

[Claudette]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.

If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

It does apply because illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country. I would suggest you look at Plyler vs Doe from 1982.

"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."

Plyler v. Doe

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment


The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.


Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.


But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.


The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.


This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.


Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.


As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”


In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.


American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.


Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

 

[oreo]

Trump will prevail.

I don't really give a rats Ass about what you think DUMBASS.

The 5th Amendment is very clear. To change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.

The fucking President has no say, and nothing to do with it.

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 .

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.

If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.

Which means they are under our jurisdiction

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As you can see from the posts here, once again the left demostrates their utter disdain for our borders, our immigration laws.
They want to see a system stay in place that allows people from all over the world to fly into the U.S., pop out a kid, then fly back home. It's all about taking advanrage of government handouts, and the American left wants it.

 

[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.

Birthright citizenship is for people born here of US citizens.

Constitution plainly states you are dead wrong.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You are the one pretending. Your pres does not call the press enemy of the state?

Once again pretending...of course he said it, my claim was that the enemies of the state do not say that...go back and look, you'll see what everyone else reading this sees.

[/quote=]What hate speech law are you talking about.[/quote]

Now pretending there is no such thing as hate speech laws

[=quote] Kinda funny when asked for examples you can not give one just speek in generalities. You want to keep my attention give me the law, name it.[/quote]
and now pretending you really want an example but once you have it, it will then become meaningless

They are called/named "HATE SPEECH" and then defined one way

Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.[/quote]

"

but used another, all designed to circumvent the 1st amendment:

"Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."

None of what you are talking about circumveted the process as it was designed. Give me the Pelosi quote! Back your shit up or be ignored.[/QUOTE]

1. Pelosi Hopes Ban on Bump Stocks Is a 'Slippery Slope' to More ...
   insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban...
   The reporter had asked her about whether she was concerned that Republicans would make the "slippery slope" argument on "bump stocks," used by the Las Vegas gunman to fire more rounds with a semi ...
   
   
2. Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Towards ...
   • townhall.com
   • › tipsheet
   • › Guy Benson
   In which Nancy Pelosi undermines the best shot at a reasonable, bipartisan bill that would implement the first new gun regulation in quite some time, including the failed Toomey-Manchin effort ...
   
   
3. Pelosi Hopes For ‘Slippery Slope’ On Gun Regulations | The ...
   dailycaller.com/2017/10/05/pelosi-hopes-for...
   “So what?” Pelosi responded. “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so. But I don’t think bump stock should be a substitute for the background check. By the way the background check is a compromise.
   
   
4. Pelosi: I sure hope a ban on bump stocks is a slippery slope ...
   hotair.com/archives/2017/10/05/pelosi-sure-hope...
   House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urged Ryan to allow a vote on a Democratic bill to ban the devices. When asked whether the bill might represent a slippery slope toward other gun restrictions, Pelosi said, “So what? . . .
   
   
5. Nancy Pelosi Hopes “Bump Stock” Ban Will Be Slippery Slope
   www.truthrevolt.org/news/nancy-pelosi-hopes-bump...
   Notorious leftist Nancy Pelosi made a statement Thursday that surely caught some off guard, if for no other reason than its brazen honesty. When asked about Republicans’ potential hesitation to join the Democrats in a ban on “bump stock” accessories like the ones possibly used in Sunday’s Las Vegas massacre, the House Minority Leader had very little regard for any “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile” concerns on the part of her political adversaries.
   
   
6. Pelosi: 'I Certainly Hope' Bump-Stock Ban Is the Beginning of ...
   www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/05/pelosi...
   Pelosi: ‘I Certainly Hope’ Bump-Stock Ban Is the Beginning of a Slippery Slope on Gun Control 5 Oct 2017 Thursday at her weekly press briefing when asked if legislation to ban bump-stocks could lead to more gun control measures, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “I certainly hope so.”
   
   
7. Nancy Pelosi's Revealing "Slip" on Banning Guns
   drhurd.com/2017/10/12/nancy-pelosis-revealing...
   Nancy Pelosi let the cat out of the bag recently when she said, “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope [on gun control/gun bans].’ I certainly hope so,” she told a reporter at a news conference.
   
   
8. 'Slippery slope' of bump stock ban - Washington Times
   www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/6/slippery...
   Pelosi’s quite right. One chip in the constitutional block leads to another chip, and then to another chip and another. It’s the slippery slope of gun control.
   
   
9. When Asked About Slippery Slope Toward Further Gun ...
   freebeacon.com/issues/pelosi-certainly-bump...
   House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said "I certainly hope" voting on a bill regulating or banning "bump stocks" will be a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions. According to ...
   
   
10. Gun Controls 'Slippery Slope', Democrats Say So What?"

now pretending that those links, explanations, and definitions were what you wanted and isn't fooling anyone, you are left with undeniable proven lies for having pretended they would actually satisfy your request for them...do you still deny she said it?
Does it really make a difference to your lies and make believe claims that she really did say it?
You must feel like an ultra-liberal right about now.

 

[Claudette]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.

If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.

Which means they are under our jurisdiction

If they commit a crime.

The jurisdiction the mother has decides what nationality her kid is because she isn't American.

Go back and read what Natural Citizen wrote about it. He explains it much better than I do.

It will be the SC that decides though.

 

[Meister]

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

I believe this is the way to get it to the Supreme Court and the possibility to get a ruling on anchor babies.

 

[danielpalos]

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

He's not changing the Constitution. He's interpreting it correctly.


Senator Reverdy Johnson clarified further: “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

This reading was understood and affirmed in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, when the Supreme Court said, “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” During the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court never referred to Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Taliban fighter born in the United States, as a citizen, nor did the Supreme Court declare in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen. Hamdi was born on American soil to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia....

Birthright Citizenship and Its Allies

It is about the whole and entire concept of natural rights. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

You bet I hope it works. These anchor babies cost we the tax payer billions every year.

Sucks to be you.

lousy public policies do that; our debt is getting bigger and the rich are getting richer.

 

[danielpalos]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.

If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.

the mother was in the US.