SCOTUS to Hear Arguments for Trump's Plan to End Birthright Citizenship

[Kondor3]

Well... despite the protestations of so many on USMB that the "jurisdiction" element of the 14th Amendment could NOT be re-interpreted, it would appear that the US Supreme Court is preparing to take another look at that very possibility... reportedly in May...

Supreme Court will weigh in on Trump plans to restrict birthright citizenship

 

[martybegan]

Well... despite the protestations of so many on USMB that the "jurisdiction" element of the 14th Amendment could NOT be re-interpreted, it would appear that the US Supreme Court is preparing to take another look at that very possibility... reportedly in May...

Supreme Court will weigh in on Trump plans to restrict birthright citizenship

I have a feeling this will be 9-0 to 7-2 against, as the amendment clearly uses "all persons born", and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is too vague to overturn something so entrenched.

What Trump then needs to do is propose a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Blaster]

The two RINO judges will rule against Trump on this.

 

[1srelluc]

I'm surprised that they even took the case.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

FACT: the birthright citizenship clause was intended for freed slaves, not for illegal immigrants

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am vehemently opposed to giving any President the authority to alter or do away with an Amendment to the US Constitution.

You want it changed, do it the right way.

 

[Kondor3]

I have a feeling this will be 9-0 to 7-2 against, as the amendment clearly uses "all persons born", and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is too vague to overturn something so entrenched.

What Trump then needs to do is propose a Constitutional amendment.

Good question... although that's what everybody thought about Roe v. Wade... and THIS one is more national security-focused...

 

[martybegan]

Good question... although that's what everybody thought about Roe v. Wade... and THIS one is more national security-focused...

Roe v Wade was a bad decision from the Start. Overturning it was just as correct as overturning Plessey.

The only argument for saying birthright citizenship isn't applicable in modern times to illegal immigrants is that the original intent was for the freed slaves, and no one at the time had any understanding of modern immigration laws and controls.

 

[Winston]

and no one at the time had any understanding of modern immigration laws and controls.

Persactly, BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE.

 

[Unkotare]

It is telling that so many of those who want to see the situation changed seem so disinterested in even attempting to amend the Constitution. Emotional response with no interest in doing the work.

 

[Shamrock17]

I have a feeling this will be 9-0 to 7-2 against, as the amendment clearly uses "all persons born", and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is too vague to overturn something so entrenched.

What Trump then needs to do is propose a Constitutional amendment.

I agree. I'm glad the SC took the case. This will then lead to Trump proposing the amendment, and since he has the house, he should strike while the iron is hot.

 

[Kondor3]

It is telling that so many of those who want to see the situation changed seem so disinterested in even attempting to amend the Constitution. Emotional response with no interest in doing the work.

I think it's more a matter of not being willing to let a million-or-so Birth Tourism beneficiaries stay here for a decade or more while the States are trying to decide on whether or not to ratify the thing, yes?

 

[johnwk]

I have a feeling this will be 9-0 to 7-2 against, as the amendment clearly uses "all persons born", and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is too vague to overturn something so entrenched.

What Trump then needs to do is propose a Constitutional amendment.

Your feeling seems to ignore the full text of the 14th Amendment, especially Section 5.

The irrefutable fact is, unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now considers the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States. And our past election was confirmation the people voted for federal policy change with respect to this issue.

Congress has never exercised its exclusive 14th Amendment, Section 5, authority to recognize the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States.

Keep in mind that in 1924 Congress did exercise its exclusive delegated power when adopting the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, I can find no “appropriate legislation” under which Congress has extended citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

The Supreme Court would be subjugating the very purpose of our elections _ which are designed to allow for the people to vote for change of existing federal public policy by their vote _ if the Supreme Court should halt or meddle with the current Administration carrying out its promise to change federal policy which previously recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States. For any member of the Supreme Court to do so (meddle with federal public policy) they would be engaging in the very definition of tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
.

 

[Unkotare]

I think it's more a matter of not being willing to let a million-or-so Birth Tourism beneficiaries stay here for a decade or more while the States are trying to decide on whether or not to ratify the thing, yes?

Our form of government is designed to not be quick and easy for good reason.

 

[martybegan]

Persactly, BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE.

Exactly. So if you go by the intent of the writers of the amendment, you could make the argument birthright citizenship for illegals isn't really in the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

I agree. I'm glad the SC took the case. This will then lead to Trump proposing the amendment, and since he has the house, he should strike while the iron is hot.

The problem is an amendment requires 2/3 of the house.

So he will lose this case, and have to campaign for the citizens to give him a 2/3 house.....

The only way this will change to me is a Constitutional Convention.

 

[martybegan]

Your feeling seems to ignore the full text of the 14th Amendment, especially Section 5.

The irrefutable fact is, unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now considers the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States. And our past election was confirmation the people voted for federal policy change with respect to this issue.

Congress has never exercised its exclusive 14th Amendment, Section 5, authority to recognize the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States.

Keep in mind that in 1924 Congress did exercise its exclusive delegated power when adopting the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, I can find no “appropriate legislation” under which Congress has extended citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

The Supreme Court would be subjugating the very purpose of our elections _ which are designed to allow for the people to vote for change of existing federal public policy by their vote _ if the Supreme Court should halt or meddle with the current Administration carrying out its promise to change federal policy which previously recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as citizens of the United States. For any member of the Supreme Court to do so (meddle with federal public policy) they would be engaging in the very definition of tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
.

I divide my opinions into things I want, and things I think will happen.

I can understand the argument being made by the side that wants to end it, I just don't think you can convince 5 justices to make such a radical change.

 

[johnwk]

I divide my opinions into things I want, and things I think will happen.

I can understand the argument being made by the side that wants to end it, I just don't think you can convince 5 justices to make such a radical change.

The Supreme Court is not vested with power to adopt public policy. Currently, federal public policy, not law, recognizes the offspring born on American soil to illegal entrant foreign nationals as citizens of the United States. Elections have consequences, including the changing of existing federal public policy.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court is not vested with power to adopt public policy. Currently, federal public policy, not law, recognizes the offspring born on American soil to illegal entrant foreign nationals as citizens of the United States. Elections have consequences, including the changing of existing federal public policy.

The thing is Trump did it via EO and his interpretation of passed laws, not on an actual passed law detailing citizenship by birthright.

If congress passed a law saying only the child of a citizen born here is a citizen, or a child of a green card holder is a citizen, the issue would be clearer.

 

[Winston]

Exactly. So if you go by the intent of the writers of the amendment, you could make the argument birthright citizenship for illegals isn't really in the Constitution.

WRONG

Let's go to the debate, in the Senate, May 30th, 1866. Specifically, Senator John Conness from California.

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf