Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

No, just enforcement of them, as was his right.

 

[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

Thats quite the mind reading attempt.

no mind reading needed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Felons and a host of others can not buy guns and the 2 nd amendment was not changed

Because they forfeited their rights , just as they fordeited their right to freedom when they went to prison. Come on, man, think!

 

[danielpalos]

we understand the Constitution, unlike the right wing.

of course you do, that's why it is so important you need this to be about "natural rights" which you feel trump the constitution.

it has to do with our declaration of independence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Thats quite the mind reading attempt.

no mind reading needed.

Wrong, as he said exactly the opposite of what your attempt at mind reading revealed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

no my little snowflake, what I did was point out your use of whataboutism when you tried to make this thread about Obama and not Trump.

Wrong again, snowflake. What you were trying to do was distract from the Left's criminal hypocrisy in supporting an ADMITTED CRIMINAL PRESIDENT who ADMITTED he had no Constitutional Authority to By-Pass Congress to affect existing Immigration law but DID SO ANYWAY.....actually DOING what Trump has only TALKED about.

Again, OBAMA COMMITTED A CRIME - VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION...AGAIN!

For this CRIME he should have been IMPEACHED...or Censured at the very least.....instead the Left praised him.

Now President Trump only MENTIONED doing what Obama did, and snowflakes, Democrats, and liberals piss themselves!

Bwuhahaha…..you're such a f*ing hypocrite / Democrat/Obama-apologist.

Obama is gone, move on and deal with the present.

Nothing that Obama did has any bearing on what Trump is doing.

Quit trying to change the subject away from the current president.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Felons and a host of others can not buy guns and the 2 nd amendment was not changed

Because they forfeited their rights , just as they fordeited their right to freedom when they went to prison. Come on, man, think!

Yet they can't own a gun when released, no one goes to prision for a misdemeanor domestic violence and they are not allowed to own a gun...


Hell where in the 2nd amendment does it say you have to pay over $200 bucks for the right to own a gun like in New York City?


.

 

[Meister]

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

No, just enforcement of them, as was his right.

Dreamers?

 

[danielpalos]

Felons and a host of others can not buy guns and the 2 nd amendment was not changed

Because they forfeited their rights , just as they fordeited their right to freedom when they went to prison. Come on, man, think!

Yet they can't own a gun when released, no one goes to prision for a misdemeanor domestic violence and they are not allowed to own a gun...


Hell where in the 2nd amendment does it say you have to pay over $200 bucks for the right to own a gun like in New York City?


.

quarterstaffs are less expensive.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

it has to do with our declaration of independence.

Our? lets see, when the constitution trumped your argument it became about "natural rights", when that scam betrayed you it then became about the "constitution", and when that tripped you up yet again it became about the "Declaration of Independence"...can the articles of confederation or founding fathers notes be far off?...maybe washington and jeffersons diaries?

 

[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

Thats quite the mind reading attempt.

Not really. Unlike you, SOME of us know that this debate has been going on for a while.

 

[bendog]

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

Thats quite the mind reading attempt.

Not really. Unlike you, SOME of us know that this debate has been going on for a while.

I believe the no anchor baby theme started around 1985

 

[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

Indian Reservations as Sovereign Nations

Did you even read your own link?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

it is about natural rights.

Now trump does have the authority to challenge and define/redefine that...good job.

only in right wing fantasy.

..but Obama had the authority to violate the Separation of Powers & By-Pass Congress, which he did frequently as dicta...er, President to impose his 'Dreamer Act' Edict?

Again, hypocrisy on display....where is the Left's outrage over Obama DOING what Trump has only talked about?

it was in Favor of natural rights. the right wing prefers to eliminate natural rights, for their socialism on a national basis.

In leftist land a natural right includes health care. Thankfully, you folks don't get to decide what is a right and what is not.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Felons and a host of others can not buy guns and the 2 nd amendment was not changed

Because they forfeited their rights , just as they fordeited their right to freedom when they went to prison. Come on, man, think!

No where in the Constitution does it say that. That was a made up restriction of 2nd Amendment rights. Much like what could happen to anchor babies.

Mark

 

[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

Thats quite the mind reading attempt.

Not really. Unlike you, SOME of us know that this debate has been going on for a while.

I believe the no anchor baby theme started around 1985

Try 1965, cluebird. Just a hint: just because you notice something twenty years after it happened doesn't mean those twenty years didn't exist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Felons and a host of others can not buy guns and the 2 nd amendment was not changed

Because they forfeited their rights , just as they fordeited their right to freedom when they went to prison. Come on, man, think!

No where in the Constitution does it say that. That was a made up restriction of 2nd Amendment rights. Much like what could happen to anchor babies.

Mark

Just like the 1st amendment, like Scalia said no amendment is absolute, Trump is bringing up a good point and we can use the lefts same arguments against them as they use on the 14th.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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.

If immigrants were not under our jurisdiction, the courts would not be able to prosecute them. If they are on U.S. soil or under our flag / control, they are "within the jurisdiction."

 

[ThisIsMe]

I hope and pray he does....

And then every Republican on the ballot has to run on that? Fantastic.

Why would every Republican have to run on that? Not every Republican supports that decision, and trump doesn't speak for everyRepublican, he speaks for himself.

When the head of your party (the President) does something, you are going to be asked if you support or oppose it.

The president isn't the head of a political party. Neither party has a "head" or a leader. A president can belong to a political party, but he doesn't speak for that party nor does the party always agree with everything a president says.

But yes, you are right that candidates will be asked if they support the decision, and they can answer that question on an individual basis.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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."

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, bub.

Those who have tried to subvert it want to make it that way. That is why you have to change it according to the rules. The 14th Amendment was a "suicide pact." It was passed for the sole purpose of destroying the Republic. Furthermore, it was done illegally.