Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[xyz]

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 think he just wants to test the Supreme Court to see if they have his back if he gets impeached.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

She was in the US illegally. She didn't have permission to be in the US.

Whatever her nationality is that the jurisdiction for the kids nationality.

not in the US. US jurisdiction applies in the US.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it’s more accurate to say that Trump disagrees on the interpretation on what the Constitution says than he thinks an EO can side step it

 

[Thinker101]

So many experts on this topic. Who knew so many existed.

 

[danielpalos]

No one is changing or repealing any amendment. It would simply be clarified.

it is already clear.

 

[danielpalos]

Former Dimocrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid:

why complain about that cost and not the cost of our extra-constitutional wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

 

[dudmuck]

I think it’s more accurate to say that Trump disagrees on the interpretation on what the Constitution says than he thinks an EO can side step it

Its more like this:

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it’s more accurate to say that Trump disagrees on the interpretation on what the Constitution says than he thinks an EO can side step it

Its more like this:

No. Not like that at all

 

[bendog]

He had, and may retain, total control of congress. I wonder why he didn't get a law passed on this. Did he lack a gop maj in the Senate with even republicans thinking this "whacked" or did he just want to stir up voters before the election without seriously doing anything.

I go for both. LOL

 

[Faun]

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.

If that is what you got out of the link, you have a reading comprehension problem.

Mark

LOLOL

Sure, Spunky. Can’t imagine where I got that from?

It can be amended​

 

[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.

My post #885 certainly put a muzzle on you, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think it’s more accurate to say that Trump disagrees on the interpretation on what the Constitution says than he thinks an EO can side step it

This being Trump, I'm not prepared to say definitively whether he actually thinks he can change the Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment via Executive Order, or whether he just thinks this is a method of triggering a Supreme Court review and possible overturning of the previous interpretation. That IS, however, how it's going to end up, so it works in that respect.

 

[evenflow1969]

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.

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?
None of that is hate speach you have lost my attention. I no longer suffer idiots! You will be put on ignore.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 think he just wants to test the Supreme Court to see if they have his back if he gets impeached.

You've been asked this before, and as far as I'm aware, you have yet to answer.

What the hell do you think the Supreme Court has to do with impeachments?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He had, and may retain, total control of congress. I wonder why he didn't get a law passed on this. Did he lack a gop maj in the Senate with even republicans thinking this "whacked" or did he just want to stir up voters before the election without seriously doing anything.

I go for both. LOL

Because no matter how the question of interpretation of the 14th Amendment is approached, it's going to end up with the Supreme Court. Going the legislation route would take a lot longer.

 

[Flash]

Didn't that Obama asshole try to change the immigration laws of the US by EO?

 

[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.

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

Indian Reservations as Sovereign Nations

 

[Frankeneinstein]

None of that is hate speach you have lost my attention. I no longer suffer idiots! You will be put on ignore.

Given the vast and extensive breadth of your left wing education I would run away too...

 

[bendog]

Didn't that Obama asshole try to change the immigration laws of the US by EO?

So did Trump. But only Trump thinks he can change the 14th by EO. And by "only" I mean he's pretty alone on this. LOL

 

[xyz]

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 think he just wants to test the Supreme Court to see if they have his back if he gets impeached.

You've been asked this before, and as far as I'm aware, you have yet to answer.

What the hell do you think the Supreme Court has to do with impeachments?

Not with the impeachment per se, but it would deal with the POTUS's ability to pardon himself and others that have proof of his guilt, his ability to obstruct justice and so on.

Also, if he can be held accountable for any crime while he is a sitting President , as well as if he can be held accountable later for crimes committed as a sitting President.