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

[johnwk]

Native Americans were considered to be rightful owners of the land (until we kicked them off) and Nations unto themselves. Which is why we had to write treaties (ratified by the senate) with the Indians, just like any other foreign nation

Yes, between 1778 and 1871, the U.S. Senate had to ratify Indian treaties for them to be formally binding, acting under the Constitutional power requiring two-thirds of senators to concur. Approximately 370 treaties were ratified, while over 45 negotiated treaties were never ratified,

Your post has nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's text and legislative intent.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your post has nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's text and legislative intent.

Neither do yours of false reasoning.

 

[johnwk]

Neither do yours of false reasoning.

According to you. You have yet to offer an intelligent rebuttal

 

[jacksonlamb]

According to you. You have yet to offer an intelligent rebuttal

I have, of course, but pointing out your political philosophy is weak and will not be bought by SCOTUS.

 

[postman]

Your post has nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's text and legislative intent.

It explains why the native americans were not natural born americans.
They did not fall within our jurisdiction. Which is why we had to use Treaties.

 

[postman]

I have, of course, but pointing out your political philosophy is weak and will not be bought by SCOTUS.

The political philosophy argument was the one used in the Dredd Scott decision.

Which the 14th amendment clearly rejected by it's clear text, granting citizenship without regard to allegiance.

 

[johnwk]

It explains why the native americans were not natural born americans.
They did not fall within our jurisdiction. Which is why we had to use Treaties.

And? The question to be answered is:

Should public policy be adopted by the people's elected representatives or our unelected S.C. members?

If a majority of the members on our Supreme Court render a decision in Trump v. Barbara which effectively concludes that henceforth, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated and subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States are natural-born U.S. citizens, they will have created a new identifiable group of persons bestowed with the priceless priviledged of U.S. natural-born citizenship. And that is very bothersome to me.

My understanding of our system's separation of powers indicates that, extending the cherished and valuable privilege of natural-born, United States citizenship, to a new identifiable group of persons as was done under the Snyder Act for Indians, is a political subject matter and decision exclusively, by the terms of our Constitution, entrusted to the people's elected representatives, their Congress and President, and not within the powers of members on our Supreme Court when acting if their official capacity.

The miracle our Founders created expressly commands the people’s elected representatives, who can be held accountable by the people during elections, get to pass laws and adopt policy which affects the people lives. And if the people’s elected representatives adopt laws and policies which the people disapprove of, they get to remove those representatives from offices as was done during last election when 77,303,568 vs 74.4 million, voted for Trump because of his promise of reversing Biden's open border policy, and reversing the Biden Administration's policy of recognizing the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil as natural-born United States citizens.

President Trump is now attempting to keep his promise with his Executive Order policy Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship, which simply reverses existing policy recognizing children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals while on American soil as natural-born U.S. citizens. Why does this upset you?

Do you not think current policy regarding natural-born citizenship will not attract hundreds of millions more of the worlds poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminals, terrorists and religious fanatic foreign nationals to smother our country? Indeed, this is a political question having extraordinary consequences which hang in the balance, and must be addressed by our elected representatives, just as our Constitution commands, and not by an unelected majority who sit on our Supreme Court.

.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The Constitution governs the answer to Should public policy be adopted by the people's elected representatives or our unelected S.C. members?

Tough, it is SCOTUS that makes these rules. Run along.

 

[johnwk]

The Constitution governs the answer to Should public policy be adopted by the people's elected representatives or our unelected S.C. members?

Tough, it is SCOTUS that makes these rules. Run along.

I get the impression you never attended a basic civics class.

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.

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.”

Finally, a President, a representative of the people, is authorized to set new public policy under Article 2.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I get the impression you new attended a basic civics class.

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.

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.”

Finally, a President, a representative of the people, is authorized to set new public policy under Article 2.

Proofread your posts, please.

SCOTUS is the interpreter of the Constitution, not the President or the Congress.

Defining 'birthright citizen' is not a legislative power belonging to Congress.

End of story.

 

[johnwk]

SCOTUS is the interpreter of the Constitution, not the President or the Congress.

Why our S.C. must apply Luther v. Borden in Trump v. Barbara

Your statement begs the question “How are we to determine the true meaning of the “Citizenship Clause” as intended by those who crafted it and the people who voted for it”?

If a majority of the members on our S.C. attach their own desired meaning to the Constitution, they will have defeated the very reason for having a written constitution which the States and people therein voted for, and is intended to set the rules under which we live.

I will never forget the day decades ago when studying constitutional law and the making of our Constitution, when coming across the following quote:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And this brings me back to my conclusion. "The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.” How could there be such a knowing and willing intention during the time period when the Fourteenth Amendment was being framed when legal entry of foreign nationals into the United States was essentially governed by state laws and largely unrestricted?

Today, the States and citizens therein are dealing with a unique social and political situation not addressed by our Constitution ___ millions upon millions of foreign nationals have illegally entered the United States and are giving birth, which raises the question. . . are the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, natural-born U.S. citizens? To pretend that the States and citizens therein knowingly and willingly took up this question and agreed by the terms of our Constitution to extend the precious and priceless privilege of natural-born citizenship to the identifiable group in question is not just astounding, but a flat out misrepresentation of historical fact.

And the above 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 compatible with our Constitution, are restricted to applying the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions of this magnitude __ bestowing the cherished and priceless privilege of United States natural-born citizenship upon a new and identifiable group of persons ___ is not, by the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution, within the province of our unelected Supreme Court members to decide.

JWK

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. _________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

 

[jacksonlamb]

There is no question worthy of begging on this issue.

SCOTUS will rule against you at least 8 to 1.

 

[johnwk]

There is no question worthy of begging on this issue.

SCOTUS will rule against you at least 8 to 1.

There are few things which are indisputable.

During the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, there is not a shred of evidence to be found to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

Likewise, there is no Supreme Court ruling to be found which took up the question, “Is a child born on American soil to a foreign national who violated United States law upon entry into the United States, a natural-born United States citizen”?

Additionally, our system requires consent of the governed in matters which affect the peoples’ general welfare and their daily lives. Consent of the governed may be satisfied via Article V, our system’s amendment process, or, through the people’s elected representatives acting on their behalf. . . their Congress or President.

Granting natural-born United States citizenship status to an identifiable group of persons is without question a political subject matter of enormous consequense, requiring consent of the governed as was the case in:

establishing U.S. citizenship for the people 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.

And the above stated facts 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 of such magnitude, 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 unelected Supreme Court members to decide.

 

[jacksonlamb]

There is no positive sense to your "indisputable" nonsense.

You will lose the SCOTUS vote.

That leaves you the amendment route. Good luck.

 

[johnwk]

There is no positive sense to your "indisputable" nonsense.

You will lose the SCOTUS vote.

That leaves you the amendment route. Good luck.

Your naysaying is noted, just as your failure to substantiate your naysaying is noted.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your naysaying is noted, just as your failure to substantiate your naysaying is noted.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

I don't have to. You do. And you have failed. So bigly.

 

[johnwk]

I don't have to.

But you do naysay, all the time.

 

[jacksonlamb]

But you do naysay, all the time.

I don't have to. And you do, and you have failed.

 

[Dekster]

If Trump and the GOP wanted to protect the value of american citizenship, they would stop taxing americans on foreign income