Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[Penelope]

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

Anchor babies started with an EO, they can end with an EO, too.

Then get Congress to pass a real law. We're going to have to force these politicians to do something after the midterms.

Is there an EO on it, and I'm not talking about DACA (the dream act). If he would let the Dreamers stay, there is nothing to appeal is there??

 

[NightFox]

I'm not a fan of Executive Orders, though. The problem with them is that they're too often abused and end up violating, at the very least, undermining constitutional separations of powers.

EXCEPT.. when the Executive uses them to address a question of immediacy that hasn't been addressed by the other 2 branches, which applies in this case, that was the original purpose of the EO and yes it is often abused.

He's in effect forcing a judicial branch decision on the question, Congress could also weigh in via legislation but it won't since it's too political and Congress has a habit of avoiding responsibility for anything that could potentially cause the critters to lose voters.

 

[candycorn]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

Just like you!

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

Would not change a word of your post.

Perfect!

I sure hope that EO works and it will be one interesting debate in the SC.

Me too

 

[Correll]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

It reduces a motivation for illegal immigration. And a source of new and unwanted citizens.

 

[Votto]

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

Silly man, Executive Orders cannot violate the law, unless of course, you are Obama ignoring immigration laws, but I think that is only common sense.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

Anchor babies started with an EO, they can end with an EO, too.

Then get Congress to pass a real law. We're going to have to force these politicians to do something after the midterms.

Is there an EO on it, and I'm not talking about DACA (the dream act). If he would let the Dreamers stay, there is nothing to appeal is there??

Not 100% certain, but pretty sure there is, one of the Bushes..

 

[Claudette]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

It reduces a motivation for illegal immigration. And a source of new and unwanted citizens.

And it saves we the tax payer billions each year.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

That court case is from 1898. The issue was settled long ago. Sorry to disappoint the uneducated.

 

[NightFox]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

 

[candycorn]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

It reduces a motivation for illegal immigration. And a source of new and unwanted citizens.

And it saves we the tax payer billions each year.

Actually the exact opposite is true. I hope he tries to subvert the Constitution before the midterm. Manna from Heaven

 

[candycorn]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

No upside for Trump I meant

 

[OldLady]

invader noun [ C ]
UK /ɪnˈveɪ.dər/ US /ɪnˈveɪ.dɚ/
army or country that uses force to enterand take control of another country:

The foreign invaders were finally defeated by alliedforces.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

Just like you!

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

Would not change a word of your post.

Perfect!

I sure hope that EO works and it will be one interesting debate in the SC.

That was already decided over a century ago.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

There will be no case before the SCOTUS. Precedent has already been set.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump is actually using an Executive Order for it's intended purpose in this case.

Specifically to issue an executive action on a question that has never been addressed by either the courts or Congress, which is the application of the 14th Amendment to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant or temporary legal status parents.

This isn't an attempt to CHANGE the Constitution but to force an interpretation of it from one (or both) of the other branches.

I suspect than when the dust is settled the Judicial Branch will rule in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status and Congress being Congress will remain mute on the question.

There is no upside

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

The ruling was made in 1898.

 

[DGS49]

The basis of the current "belief" that people who are born here are automatically U.S. citizens is a FOOTNOTE in a USSC decision, written by that fraud, Justice Brennan.

In order for a legal/Constitutional holding to constitute binding precedent, it must be the basis of a definitive holding by the Court. Commentary, such as is found in footnotes, is referred to legally as "dicta," and is not binding.

Regardless, the words in question in the 14th Amendment were intended to carve out children of diplomats serving in the U.S. at the time of their birth. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children born to people in the country illegally.

It would not take a Constitutional Amendment to set the record right. Legislation would do it. An Executive Order might work if the USSC were tilted correctly...hey, WAIT A SECOND!

Do It DONALD!!!!!

 

[Natural Citizen]

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means anyone within a state's borders. Anyone who enters a state or the United States is subject to the jurisdiction. That is well-settled law.

Nope. I disagree, Bootney. It's never really been brought to court.

The only case we can point to is United States vs Wong Kim Ark and that case was about was about immigrants legally residing in the U.S and ineligable for citizenship.

The Supreme Court has never rendered a judgement about whether the birthright citizenship clause covers children born to illegal immigrants.

What settled law are you talking about? Can you show me what case law you're talking about?

 

[candycorn]

The basis of the current "belief" that people who are born here are automatically U.S. citizens is a FOOTNOTE in a USSC decision, written by that fraud, Justice Brennan.

In order for a legal/Constitutional holding to constitute binding precedent, it must be the basis of a definitive holding by the Court. Commentary, such as is found in footnotes, is referred to legally as "dicta," and is not binding.

Regardless, the words in question in the 14th Amendment were intended to carve out children of diplomats serving in the U.S. at the time of their birth. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children born to people in the country illegally.

It would not take a Constitutional Amendment to set the record right. Legislation would do it. An Executive Order might work if the USSC were tilted correctly...hey, WAIT A SECOND!

Do It DONALD!!!!!

Please do it Donald.

Would you be upset if he backs away from this threat like he’s done so often?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The basis of the current "belief" that people who are born here are automatically U.S. citizens is a FOOTNOTE in a USSC decision, written by that fraud, Justice Brennan.

In order for a legal/Constitutional holding to constitute binding precedent, it must be the basis of a definitive holding by the Court. Commentary, such as is found in footnotes, is referred to legally as "dicta," and is not binding.

Regardless, the words in question in the 14th Amendment were intended to carve out children of diplomats serving in the U.S. at the time of their birth. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children born to people in the country illegally.

It would not take a Constitutional Amendment to set the record right. Legislation would do it. An Executive Order might work if the USSC were tilted correctly...hey, WAIT A SECOND!

Do It DONALD!!!!!

Wrong on so many levels!

Did you flunk civics in school?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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

O opened that door. You were down.

 

[martybegan]

>snip/iunsnip> But, I do think taking this action gets the debate started on correcting the 14th Amendment language so that it does not include anchor babies, as it never was the intent.

`
I'm always open for discussion but on this forum you have hundreds of self-appointed constitutional experts, none with any legal training, convinced their interpretation of the constitution is the the correct one and everyone else, including SCOTUS, is wrong. Not much of a chance for any rational discussion there,

The good news is that the "conservatives" on the Court will interpret the 14th Amendment as it is written (as they should), rather than based on the intent. This is a great example of why I want strict constructionists on the Court. The correct decision is to first give the words of the constitution their plain meaning and only use the legislative intent to resolve ambiguities. The 14th is unambiguous. Trump's EOs should be shot down.

I still want him to do it to get the issue before Congress and the States.

.

The next question is if congress has the ability to make a law that ends birthright citizenship.

Congress won't touch it. THe libs will want to resolve this in the courts.

Depends on what type of congress we get, either now or in 2020.