Discussion in 'Politics' started by Death Angel, Aug 22, 2019.
Not injuns either
Have a it Dumpf. But why don't you read it first. And, if his inerpretations of the Constitution is so accurate, why hasn't he called for a constitutional convention to wipe out the sections he doesn't understand?
While my first name does start with an "r", that ain't it, nor am I dead.
As far as Trump not wanting it ended? Did you even bother to read the link? I'm guessing not, because you missed this part of it....................
The president proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign. He revived the idea last year, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.
Numerous lawmakers, including several Republicans, quickly pushed back on the idea and argued Trump lacked the authority to make such a change using an executive order. They cited that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined under the 14th Amendment.
Trump responded to the criticism by saying birthright citizenship would be ended "one way or another."
Trump himself said that he was looking to end birthright citizenship, not "properly interpret it".
You seriously didnt get my point?
You had a point? Because from your post saying that Trump was looking to have the 14th properly interpreted rather than wanting to get rid of the 14th was wrong. I even posted the part of the OP's article that says Trump wants to get rid of it.
Only problem is, an amendment must go through Congress and pass with a 2/3 majority, or through a convention of the states, and again, needs a 2/3 majority to pass. Trump can't do it by himself.
that would be the entire constitution -
Trump & Co. are are a bunch of RW fascistic, xenophobic and misogynistic cultural white nationalists with Trump as their "Emperor" who have never actually read and understand the US Constitution. Nor or are they aware of the 1896 stare dices decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark CONFIRMING birthright citizenship, as Trump has pegged it, as settled law of the land. An Executive Action of any sort will not overcome the Constitution or settled precedent in case law from the High Court.
You Trump sycophants are being played yet again,. Get a fuck clue that it's a hook in the corner of your collective mouths!
Not necessarily...the court could easily agree that the 14th was not ratified within constitutional guidelines.
Why you a 149 years old?
Separate names with a comma.