Making sense of Trump v. Barbara and Trump's E.O. "Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship"

[johnwk]

You have two ways to change it, legally.

One, get an amendment through.

Two, SCOTUS.

Neither are likely.

Change what? Changing public policy is within the exclusive powers of the people's elected representatives. . . Congress and President . . . not the court.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Change what? Changing public policy is within the exclusive powers of the people's elected representatives. . . Congress and President . . . not the court.

Congress does not the authority to define legally how citizenship is conferred. That is not one of its powers.

 

[johnwk]

Congress does not the authority to define legally how citizenship is conferred. That is not one of its powers.

Our Congress has exclusive power to create a new identifiable group of persons granted natural-born U.S. citizenship, as was done under the Snyder Act for Indians.

Our Supreme Court members through their opinions while acting in their official capacity, are not authorized to create a new identifiable group of persons granted natural-born U.S. citizenship, which is a power rightfully entrusted to the people's elected representatives . . . their Congress and President.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Our Congress has exclusive power to create a new identifiable group of persons granted natural-born U.S. citizenship, as was done under the Snyder Act for Indians.

Our Supreme Court members through their opinions while acting in their official capacity, are not authorized to create a new identifiable group of persons granted natural-born U.S. citizenship, which is a power rightfully entrusted to the people's elected representatives . . . their Congress and President.

No, it does not. Whether Marbury v. Madison is your tea or not, we all have to drink it.

 

[johnwk]

No, it does not.

According to you but refuted by our Constitution.

Article I​

Section 1: Congress​

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

[jacksonlamb]

According to you but refuted by our Constitution.

Article I​

Section 1: Congress​

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

But citizenship for the US is controlled by the Constitution.

 

[postman]

It's going to get much worse with the 20 million uneducated illegal aliens that Biden let invade our country. We're on the threshold of the AI era and all those menial labor illegals are about to become dependent on the taxpayer. They have already depressed wages, caused unemployment, overcrowded schools and hospitals, caused housing shortages and put a strain on our infrastructure. Birthright citizenship is unsustainable. It's a sure way to commit national suicide.

This is where you seemed confused about what AI is.
AI can't repair a roof, or bus a table.
But can do the work of a paralegal or bookkeeper.
So the myth that the uneducated illegal aliens will become a burden on society, won't be because of AI.

 

[johnwk]

But citizenship for the US is controlled by the Constitution.

Yes, it is.

Congress is granted exclusive power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment Section 5, it delegates a "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the 14th Amendment.

Our S.C. is not vested with legislative power to create a new identifiable group of persons as natural-born United States citizens.

The bottom line is,

If a majority of the members on our Supreme Court issue an opinion in Trump v. Barbara under which the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, are henceforth natural-born United States citizens upon their birth, they will have created a new identifiable group of natural-born United States citizens, which is not within the lawful powers delegated the United States Supreme Court members, and they will be making a political determination which is exclusively within the powers of the people’s elected representatives, Congress, and the people’s elected president.


Our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide..

 

[wamose]

This is where you seemed confused about what AI is.
AI can't repair a roof, or bus a table.
But can do the work of a paralegal or bookkeeper.
So the myth that the uneducated illegal aliens will become a burden on society, won't be because of AI.

They're already a burden on society. I can remember when the excuse was, they just come here to pick our crops and then they go home. But that was never what it was all about. It was about slave labor. Today, the construction, hospitality and landscaping businesses, to name a few, are loaded with illegals. Hell, I bet we even have mayors that have come here illegally. And I also disagree that AI won't replace menial workers. They're already designing robots to work on production lines and even as soldiers. The possibilities are endless. Personally, I'd like to see AI takeover our judicial system. It really can't get much worse than it is without changing to our Democrat's dream system of communism

 

[jacksonlamb]

Yes, it is.

Congress is granted exclusive power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment Section 5, it delegates a "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the 14th Amendment.

Our S.C. is not vested with legislative power to create a new identifiable group of persons as natural-born United States citizens.

The bottom line is,

If a majority of the members on our Supreme Court issue an opinion in Trump v. Barbara under which the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, are henceforth natural-born United States citizens upon their birth, they will have created a new identifiable group of natural-born United States citizens, which is not within the lawful powers delegated the United States Supreme Court members, and they will be making a political determination which is exclusively within the powers of the people’s elected representatives, Congress, and the people’s elected president.


Our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide..

But Congress does not have the legislative power as interpreted by Ark. You forget that.

You can role out argument after argument, but it wrecks itself on the power of SCOTUS and its decisions.

If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, pound the table and yell. Keep pounding and yelling.

 

[jacksonlamb]

They're already a burden on society. I can remember when the excuse was, they just come here to pick our crops and then they go home. But that was never what it was all about. It was about slave labor. Today, the construction, hospitality and landscaping businesses, to name a few, are loaded with illegals. Hell, I bet we even have mayors that have come here illegally. And I also disagree that AI won't replace menial workers. They're already designing robots to work on production lines and even as soldiers. The possibilities are endless. Personally, I'd like to see AI takeover our judicial system. It really can't get much worse than it is without changing to our Democrat's dream system of communism

What a goofy conclusion. Non-citizens pick our crops and keep prices down. You and I won't pick them. I rowed cotton and swore I would get an education so I could get republikkkans to do it for me in the future. I succeeded: aliens and republikkkans like you do that work now.

 

[johnwk]

But Congress does not have the legislative power as interpreted by Ark. You forget that.

You can role out argument after argument, but it wrecks itself on the power of SCOTUS and its decisions.

If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, pound the table and yell. Keep pounding and yelling.

Every member on our Supreme Court is bound by the following oath:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And under our Constitution Congress is granted exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment, Section 5, it delegates to Congress a “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, under Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

So, S.C. members are bound by our Constitution and our Constitution disagrees with your naysaying in explicit terms.

The fact is, Supreme Court members are not authorized to expand the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it was understood by its crafters and people who voted for it, and thus, may not lawfully create a new group of persons entitled to U.S., natural-born citizenship, as was lawfully done by Congress under its exclusive legislative authority, when extending the precious privilege of natural-born U.S. citizenship to Indians under the Snyder Act.

And that is why I believe our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons, is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide.
.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Every member on our Supreme Court is bound by the following oath:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And under our Constitution Congress is granted exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment, Section 5, it delegates to Congress a “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, under Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

So, S.C. members are bound by our Constitution and our Constitution disagrees with your naysaying in explicit terms.

The fact is, Supreme Court members are not authorized to expand the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it was understood by its crafters and people who voted for it, and thus, may not lawfully create a new group of persons entitled to U.S., natural-born citizenship, as was lawfully done by Congress under its exclusive legislative authority, when extending the precious privilege of natural-born U.S. citizenship to Indians under the Snyder Act.

And that is why I believe our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons, is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide.
.

Keep pounding and yelling.

 

[johnwk]

Keep pounding and yelling.

Once again you offer no rebuttal, and resort to an adolescent comment.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Once again you offer no rebuttal, and resort to an adolescent comment.

I point out merely that you are no authority, that your evidences are counter-factual to the intent of the 14th, and that you inevitably are going to lose.

 

[johnwk]

I point out merely that you are no authority, that your evidences are counter-factual to the intent of the 14th, and that you inevitably are going to lose.

You make the unsubstantiated assertion that my evidence is ". . . counter-factual to the intent of the 14th . . . "

 

[jacksonlamb]

You make the unsubstantiated assertion that my evidence is ". . . counter-factual to the intent of the 14th . . . "

Of course I can, because your evidences are merely your opinion. Truly, you are no logician, historian, or lawyer.

 

[Mac-7]

Everything you just said, about foreign nationals (africans) on American soil, who violated US statutory laws (the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, signed by President Thomas Jefferson) upon their entry into the United States.

The drafters of the amendment intended to grant their offspring birthright citizenship also.

So what's the difference between Africans illegally smuggled into the US and Mexicans, or South Americans illegally smuggled into the US?

Give us an iota of difference in their status.

So what's the difference between Africans illegally smuggled into the US and Mexicans, or South Americans illegally smuggled into the US?

The difference is how we choose to treat them

Its up to us who we choose to give citizenship- or even green cards - to

 

[johnwk]

Of course I can, because your evidences are merely your opinion.

You intentionally misrepresent facts as opinion . . . a very disingenuous tactic,

Let us look at facts.

Every member on our Supreme Court is bound by the following oath:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And under our Constitution Congress is granted exclusive power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment, Section 5, it delegates to Congress a "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, under Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Consequently, Supreme Court members are not authorized by the terms of our Constitution to make political determinations and expand the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it was understood by its crafters and people who voted for it, and thus, may not lawfully create a new group of persons entitled to U.S., natural-born citizenship, as was lawfully done by Congress under its exclusive legislative authority, when extending the precious privilege of natural-born U.S. citizenship to:

Citizens of Hawaii under the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900;

giving Puerto Ricans U.S. statutory citizenship under the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917;

extending natural-born birthright citizenship to Indians under the Snyder Act of 1924;

And then in 1940, Congress codified many previous laws and explicitly included persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam as citizens at birth.

The people's elected representatives in Congress, are vested with the legislative authority to make political determinations, such as extending U.S. natural-born birthright citizenship to identifiable groups of persons. This authority is not placed in the hands of our unelected members on our Supreme Court.

And that is why I believe our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara and deciding if Trump’s E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as bestowing the cherished and valuable privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons, is not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide.

 

[postman]

So what's the difference between Africans illegally smuggled into the US and Mexicans, or South Americans illegally smuggled into the US?

The difference is how we choose to treat them

Its up to us who we choose to give citizenship- or even green cards - to

We can't discriminate. The constitution grants equal protection. So it can't treat people differently.
Whether they entered illegally in 1826 or in 2026, they get the same privileges and immunities.