Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[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."

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.

The proper remedy is to repeal the 14th Amendment on the basis that it was never legally ratified in the first place. If America is destroyed by an influx of foreigners, what difference does it make whether they have a piece of paper, issued by an illegal government, in their pocket?

 

[boedicca]

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.

Yeah, no.

 

[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.

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

i suspect you have no clue what he is saying then

 

[Meathead]

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

Trump has thrown down the guanlet. Game on!

 

[Polishprince]

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

You got it wrong, GG. President Trump is just opening up a conversation on this topic.

The current status quo, birth tourism, where people fly or drive to the United States to give birth can't stand for long. The writers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to encourage violations of our sacred Immigration laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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...

Right...but they forefeited rights. A baby has done no such thing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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...

Right...but they forefeited rights. A baby has done no such thing.

Stretching it.. what about people who smoke pot in states like Colorado?

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia


is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));


.

 

[Marion Morrison]

"I for one sure hope he can change the 14th"..... Someone who doesn't know that the President has no power to change the Constitution. Did you vote for tiny trump?

Are you a stupid, doublewide dieseldyke leftist shill?

The answer is yes!

 

[danielpalos]

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?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[danielpalos]

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

We have a Constitution.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

We have a Constitution.

What does that mean, pea-brain?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Got anything official from that bogus "natural rights" thing you sighted? try and get it verbatim if ya can.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What does that mean, pea-brain?

He's got that european thing going on

 

[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!

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

But it only passed the censors because criminals can forget rights. Anchor babies are not criminals. So no, the restrictions wi not be similar in any way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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...

Right...but they forefeited rights. A baby has done no such thing.

Stretching it.. what about people who smoke pot in states like Colorado?

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia


is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));


.

We're they criminals who forfeited rights? Yes.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

And so did Obama

-Geaux
------------------------------

Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President

Each year, Supreme Court reporters and legal pundits devise a “theme” for the term just ended. They try to connect disparate cases into a coherent narrative about, for example, “the court’s turn to the Left,” the “triumph of minimalism,” or even its “libertarian moment.” Such trendspotting is mainly an artificial exercise driven by the vagaries of the docket; it’s not like the justices suddenly decide to make ideological shifts or alter jurisprudential approaches.

This term, however, confirmed a very real phenomenon: the Obama administration, by historical standards, has done exceedingly poorly before the Supreme Court. While this conclusion may seem counterintuitive given the term’s liberal victories on abortion and affirmative action—or previous terms’ rulings upholding Obamacare—the statistics are staggering.

Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President

 

[danielpalos]

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

We have a Constitution.

What does that mean, pea-brain?

we already know what natural rights are.

 

[beagle9]

Common sense is lacking very badly in this country anymore, because anyone with a brain should know that a child born out in a box car by an illegal Mexican couple is a Mexican national born by a Mexican couple here illegally. Duh !!!!!!

When comes time to deport the couple and their child once found out they are here illegally, then the whole family is kept together when deported. Problem solved.

Now if an American male has consentual sex with an illegal female, and she becomes pregnant with child, then this complicates matters a bit.

In the case of the American male (if the female wants to leave with child upon deportation once caught here illegally), then her and the child are free to go regardless of what the father thinks, because he should have known better than to harbor an illegal in the first place much less get her pregnant.... And if the father refuses to wed the mother, and doesn't want to take full responsibility of the mother and child himself, then the mother and child returns to the country of origin where the child becomes a citizen of the mothers country by birthright born of her womb and her chosen nationality. If the father wants to go with her to Mexico as an example, then he is free to go with her if the government of Mexico will except him there. If the illegal female wants nothing to do with the child after birth on American soil, and she gives the child to the father as she goes back to her home country, then the child becomes an American citizen because of being born to an American parent on American soil.

The same goes for an illegal male who has consentual sex with an American female citizen, it also complicates the matter greatly.

Either the couple and their child remains united in the deportation or the mother and child remains while the illegal male is deported. If the male is deported, and the American female with her child remains, then the child (by no fault of it's own), becomes an American citizen by birth right.

If the American female wants to leave with the male back to his country of origin, then they are free to go the both of them with child in tow. The child then becomes a citizen of the country chosen if that government allows for that to be the case.

 

[Deno]

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

My money says you're the stupid one...……...

A fool and his money are soon parted

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

I will bet you $20.00 Trump could do it by Executive order or through Congress...….

Now prove your point from your previous point...…..

 

[danielpalos]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Got anything official from that bogus "natural rights" thing you sighted? try and get it verbatim if ya can.

Our Constitution.