One Of Trump's Unconstitutional EOs Is Being Raked Over the Coals By SCOTUS Tomorrow

[MayorQuimby]

Completely honest.

Nope.

 

[Unkotare]

I mean that can certainly happen, but the child is American, so deporting him would be kind of bad, wouldn't it?

If the child is with the parents, that's not bad. Then when the child is older the parents can send him to study in the US if they choose.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In that case the parents take the child with them during deportation.

As they should. We shouldn’t even be offering a different choice.

 

[MayorQuimby]

If the child is with the parents, that's not bad. Then when the child is older the parents can send him to study in the US if they choose.

This could work. As long as Americans don't need to spend tax money on rearing him, I am mostly satisfied.

I know what you gonna say now, "Your feelings don't count, foreigner". Lol.

 

[Unkotare]

As they should. We shouldn’t even be offering a different choice.

The child is still a citizen.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If the child is with the parents, that's not bad. Then when the child is older the parents can send him to study in the US if they choose.

At tax payer expense of course.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The child is still a citizen.

And that’s what needs to stop.

 

[Unkotare]

And that’s what needs to stop.

Which brings us back to the US Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

The child is still a citizen.

The entire discussion isn’t about your own present understanding.

In fact, the basic question challenges the very assumption upon which you state your conclusion.

 

[Meathead]

Trump has put on a lot of theater for the rubes.

A lot.

One of those performances is EO 14160.

To satisfy the large crowd of bigots in the MAGA ranks, Trump signed an Executive Order on the proverbial Day One of his administration which unconstitutionally violated the 14th Amendment. Having never read the Constitution due to its big words, Trump thought he could get away with it.

So far, every court up the chain of command has slapped Trump's, Nazi Stephen Miller's, and third stringer traitor John Eastman's pointy heads down, and tomorrow the Supreme Court will do the same.

Enter your predictions here for what the score will be when the EO is struck down.

I predict 9-0 against the illegal, unconstitutional, bigoted, hateful EO.

You can listen to the sure-to-be-hilarious arguments tomorrow here:

LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship

Birthright citizenship is among several issues the administration has asked the court to deal with on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow Trump’s agenda.

www.pbs.org

I can see a carve-out for those who entered the country illegally.

 

[scruffy]

They have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws and EOs.

For centuries now.

Do try to catch up and stop listening to your lying, uneducated propagandists. You look stupid.

Oh, by the way. Were the Supremes "activist judges" when they repealed Roe V. Wade?

You really don't think this shit through, do you, moron.

Roe v Wade was unconstitutional to begin with.

There is no right to abortion, in the Constitution or anywhere else.

 

[BackAgain]

Notice how our libtards “think?”

The question is whether the 14th Amendment MUST be legally construed as saying that kids born here of illegal aliens thereby automatically acquire U.S. citizenship.

That’s the QUESTION.

Yet, this moronic thread headline declares that the EI is Unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS might ultimately agree. Or, they may acknowledge that the question is a reasonable answer one. And they could even determine that the answer to the question highlighted above is “no.”

 

[MisterBeale]

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-5/

 

[scruffy]

And that’s what needs to stop.

The simple solution is to keep the child and deport the parents.

That'll put an end to this mess real fast.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Jeez, all I did was ask a question and you got all triggered. And sorry to stop you from ejaculating but I am not even American.


I will ask again: What's the point of having Executive Orders, if judges can just strike them down? You never answered this question and I think it's a valid one.

If an executive order violates the U.S. Constitution or any other federal laws, the judges are SUPPOSED to strike them down.

Just because the person issuing the "directive" wants the right to do something doesn't mean that they can go ahead and do so if what they want is not lawful.

If Trump passed an order saying that any Black person in the United States who isn't presently employed is to be rounded up and shipped to some isolated island, do you think that would be legal? No matter how many people support the order?

 

[Mac1958]

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I didn't say they are the same.

I don't understand what EOs really do in your country, but I know that they are different from regular laws, in the sense that they enable the president to do what he wants to do. I am not saying this is what they do or how things should be or any of that. I am just saying that EOs are different from laws. This is my understanding.

Also, I did not say EOs are always constitutional. However, if they can be unconstitutional, which means they can be struck down by judges, which just brings me back to my original point: what's the purpose of EOs?

If you don't mind readying what AI has to say on the matter:

What’s the Purpose of Executive Orders?​

➤​

They serve to:

• Implement or clarify existing laws
• Direct federal agencies how to enforce or prioritize those laws
• Respond to emergencies or urgent national matters without waiting for Congress
• Advance policy goals when Congress is gridlocked

---

🏛 Why Can Courts Strike Them Down?​

Because executive orders aren’t laws — they must:

• Stay within the scope of existing statutes or constitutional authority
• Not override or contradict acts of Congress
• Respect the separation of powers

If an executive order:

• Exceeds presidential authority,
• Violates constitutional rights, or
• Conflicts with federal law,

Then courts — especially the Supreme Court — can declare it unconstitutional and void it.

---

Real-World Analogy:​

Executive orders are like a CEO directing their departments, but they can’t break the company’s bylaws or override the board (Congress) — and the company’s legal counsel (courts) can shut down anything that violates core rules.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It is. Been covered 5000 times. There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

No amount of pointing that out is going to stop you.

Next time you want to make crap up, just let my dismissal of your post go.

Our government came up with term "anchor baby" although they didn't put it in quite those terms. They referred to the practice of individuals entering the U.S. and having a child on U.S. soils as a means of "anchoring themselves into U.S. society and then using this "foothold" to bring in other family members.

I'll see if I can locate the source again.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It feels that you are arguing semantics.

It doesn't matter if the term "anchor baby" exists or not. Do illegals sneak into the country to have kids in the hope of obtaining citizenship? Yes or No.

I'm not sure that the goal is simply to obtain citizenship. There is still a process involved in gaining citizenship for themselves and it can be quite lengthy but my understanding is that this is true for those who go through the process legally so there is no advantage to be gained on THAT front for doing it this way.

I believe the actual reason they do it is to gain access to the benefits that go along with having a child and not being able to support it. The government will pay for food, housing and other benefits to the parent of the child so I believe that THIS is the true motivation for doing this.

Today you're penniless, tomorrow your needs are being taken care of.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I predict 9-0 against the illegal, unconstitutional, bigoted, hateful EO.

Trump’s EO is illegal, unconstitutional, bigoted, racist, and hateful.

Unfortunately, tragically, the Supreme Court is dominated with blind partisan conservative ideologues who have demonstrated their contempt for settled, accepted Constitutional precedent – it is far from certain that the Trump Court will uphold the precedent that is birthright citizenship.