Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[OnePercenter]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried. This is a "gutcheck" post. If you try to defend Trump's statement it is proof positive you are a complete moron and abject ignoramus. I dont care what your political leanings.
Donald Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

It doesn't matter what Trump says. The big giant ego is running to lose.

 

[candycorn]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.


.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations...

Too damn funny.

Last I checked, the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law. You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Here is a diagram that may help you the next time you try to discuss the Constitution though you'd be better off leaving it to persons smarter than yourself; i.e. everyone.

Got it?

Thanks for playing.

Check please.

 

[JoeMoma]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.


.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations...

Too damn funny.

Last I checked, the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law. You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Here is a diagram that may help you the next time you try to discuss the Constitution though you'd be better off leaving it to persons smarter than yourself; i.e. everyone.

Got it?

Thanks for playing.

Check please.

Did you read little acorns entire post...the part about it taking years to be to through the courts if Trumpet were to do that? Looks to me you missed that part. The executive gets to interpret the law a certain way until the courts say otherwise. Obama has proven that with his phone and pin.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

In otherwords you are not going to discuss the details of the case. The answer to my question is that the parents in this case were in the united states legally. Yet this case keeps being used to justify citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrents.

You are in error. Wong (his surname) was born in the US to legal aliens. He visited China and upon returning to San Francisco was denied entry. Instead of guessing and being wrong, it would behoove you to read that LANDMARK case regarding Amendment XIV, and become aware of the particulars. And no, I'm not going into the weeds regarding the details of the case with people who have closed minds! That is a waste of my time.

 

[Camp]

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

In otherwords you are not going to discuss the details of the case. The answer to my question is that the parents in this case were in the united states legally. Yet this case keeps being used to justify citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrents.

You are in error. Wong (his surname) was born in the US to legal aliens. He visited China and upon returning to San Francisco was denied entry. Instead of guessing and being wrong, it would behoove you to read that LANDMARK case regarding Amendment XIV, and become aware of the particulars. And no, I'm not going into the weeds regarding the details of the case with people who have closed minds! That is a waste of my time.

To be fair, the part of the 14th Amendment that says people BORN in the US are CITIZENS may be confusing to some.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law.

The President must interpret it to know what to enforce. (yawn)

Or are you saying that, when a law is enacted, the President is NOT allowed to enforce any part of it until the courts tell him what and how to enforce it?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.....

 

[candycorn]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.


.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations...

Too damn funny.

Last I checked, the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law. You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Here is a diagram that may help you the next time you try to discuss the Constitution though you'd be better off leaving it to persons smarter than yourself; i.e. everyone.

Got it?

Thanks for playing.

Check please.

Did you read little acorns entire post...the part about it taking years to be to through the courts if Trumpet were to do that? Looks to me you missed that part. The executive gets to interpret the law a certain way until the courts say otherwise. Obama has proven that with his phone and pin.

Total hogwash.

You'll note Bush V. Gore (a constitutional question) was heard immediately. Having millions of Americans birthright stripped from them by the President would make Bush V. Gore pale in comparison. And yes, they still have rights even though they are young and have brown skin.

Not only that...when the Executive tries to get into a pissing contest with the judiciary, the latter has a way of taking offense.

 

[candycorn]

the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law.

The President must interpret it to know what to enforce. (yawn)

Or are you saying that, when a law is enacted, the President is NOT allowed to enforce any part of it until the courts tell him what and how to enforce it?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.....

There is a book called "The Constitution for Dummies." You should pick up a copy and have someone read it to you.

 

[JoeMoma]

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

In otherwords you are not going to discuss the details of the case. The answer to my question is that the parents in this case were in the united states legally. Yet this case keeps being used to justify citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrents.

You are in error. Wong (his surname) was born in the US to legal aliens. He visited China and upon returning to San Francisco was denied entry. Instead of guessing and being wrong, it would behoove you to read that LANDMARK case regarding Amendment XIV, and become aware of the particulars. And no, I'm not going into the weeds regarding the details of the case with people who have closed minds! That is a waste of my time.

You say I am in error, but in your second sentence you confirm that I am right. Wong's parents were here legally when he was born.

Concerning people with closed minds, the old saying "It takes one to know one" seems to apply.

 

[The sheeple sea]

An amendment to the Constitution is.. Unconstitutional. I used to think Trump wouldn't be so terrible, and I say that as someone generally left leaning, but damn... The more he talks the less I like. He really had a shot once.

 

[JoeMoma]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.


.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations...

Too damn funny.

Last I checked, the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law. You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Here is a diagram that may help you the next time you try to discuss the Constitution though you'd be better off leaving it to persons smarter than yourself; i.e. everyone.

Got it?

Thanks for playing.

Check please.

Did you read little acorns entire post...the part about it taking years to be to through the courts if Trumpet were to do that? Looks to me you missed that part. The executive gets to interpret the law a certain way until the courts say otherwise. Obama has proven that with his phone and pin.

Total hogwash.

You'll note Bush V. Gore (a constitutional question) was heard immediately. Having millions of Americans birthright stripped from them by the President would make Bush V. Gore pale in comparison. And yes, they still have rights even though they are young and have brown skin.

Not only that...when the Executive tries to get into a pissing contest with the judiciary, the latter has a way of taking offense.

True but that's the exception, not the rule. Court cases almost never go straight to the supreme court. The only reason Bush vs. Gore got such special consideration is because of the short time to have a new president in place.

 

[JoeMoma]

An amendment to the Constitution is.. Unconstitutional. I used to think Trump wouldn't be so terrible, and I say that as someone generally left leaning, but damn... The more he talks the less I like. He really had a shot once.

He never said that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

An amendment to the Constitution is.. Unconstitutional. I used to think Trump wouldn't be so terrible

Apparently you missed all the posts in this thread pointing out that Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional.

And that the OP lied in his title for the thread.

Time for you to do your homework.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!

There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

In otherwords you are not going to discuss the details of the case. The answer to my question is that the parents in this case were in the united states legally. Yet this case keeps being used to justify citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrents.

You are in error. Wong (his surname) was born in the US to legal aliens. He visited China and upon returning to San Francisco was denied entry. Instead of guessing and being wrong, it would behoove you to read that LANDMARK case regarding Amendment XIV, and become aware of the particulars. And no, I'm not going into the weeds regarding the details of the case with people who have closed minds! That is a waste of my time.

You say I am in error, but in your second sentence you confirm that I am right. Wing's parents were here legally when he was born.

Concerning people with closed minds, the old saying "It takes one to know one" seems to apply.

Its the facts of the case that are important regarding Amendment XIV. Your question was, "Was Art in the United States illegally?" That question was answered, but it was irrelevant to the totality of the case, which set the precedent for cases involving children born within the jurisdiction of the United States to non citizens, legal or otherwise with regards to Amendment XIV. If you wish to claim otherwise, present the facts!

 

[The sheeple sea]

An amendment to the Constitution is.. Unconstitutional. I used to think Trump wouldn't be so terrible

Apparently you missed all the posts in this thread pointing out that Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional.

And that the OP lied in his title for the thread.

Time for you to do your homework.

I did miss quite a few points I guess, oh well, off to homework.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It doesn't matter what Trump says.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what Trump says.

 

[Camp]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.


.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations...

Too damn funny.

Last I checked, the Executive enforces the law; the judiciary interprets the law. You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Here is a diagram that may help you the next time you try to discuss the Constitution though you'd be better off leaving it to persons smarter than yourself; i.e. everyone.

Got it?

Thanks for playing.

Check please.

Did you read little acorns entire post...the part about it taking years to be to through the courts if Trumpet were to do that? Looks to me you missed that part. The executive gets to interpret the law a certain way until the courts say otherwise. Obama has proven that with his phone and pin.

An injunction will be applied for and granted immediately following any attempt by Trump to **** with the constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

An injunction will be applied for and granted immediately following any attempt by Trump to **** with the constitution.

TRANSLATION: Uh-oh, he was right. We really CAN'T stop him except by fighting our way through the courts.

 

[JoeMoma]

Was Art in the United States illegally?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the case to you piecemeal. I posted the source reference to the Syllabus, Decision and Dissent in post #30 on this thread. Avail yourself of the opportunity to get your detailed answers there.

In otherwords you are not going to discuss the details of the case. The answer to my question is that the parents in this case were in the united states legally. Yet this case keeps being used to justify citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrents.

You are in error. Wong (his surname) was born in the US to legal aliens. He visited China and upon returning to San Francisco was denied entry. Instead of guessing and being wrong, it would behoove you to read that LANDMARK case regarding Amendment XIV, and become aware of the particulars. And no, I'm not going into the weeds regarding the details of the case with people who have closed minds! That is a waste of my time.

You say I am in error, but in your second sentence you confirm that I am right. Wing's parents were here legally when he was born.

Concerning people with closed minds, the old saying "It takes one to know one" seems to apply.

Its the facts of the case that are important regarding Amendment XIV. Your question was, "Was Art in the United States illegally?" That question was answered, but it was irrelevant to the totality of the case, which set the precedent for cases involving children born within the jurisdiction of the United States to non citizens, legal or otherwise with regards to Amendment XIV. If you wish to claim otherwise, present the facts!

And I said that that this case is used as a precedent for granting the children of illegal immigrants citizenship even though Wong's parents were legal. Is that fact irrelevant? Perhaps! But one thing I've learned about the supreme court (and the lower courts) is that its full of surprises. If Trumpet were to be elected president there is a strong possibility that the court would have to rule specifically on the question of citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. And if this does happen I would expect the court to uphold that children of illegal immigrants are citizens even though I don't believe that this is the original intent of the ammendment.

 

[Camp]

An injunction will be applied for and granted immediately following any attempt by Trump to **** with the constitution.

TRANSLATION: Uh-oh, he was right. We really CAN'T stop him except by fighting our way through the courts.

No, I gave a response to a post claiming the President can interpret a constitutional amendment and it would take years winding through the courts. It just doesn't work that way. An injunction is filed and a case of that magnitude would get immediate attention.
If Trump were right there would be recognized constitutional lawyers explaining why he is right and not why he is wrong. So far only one recognized recognized constitutional lawyer has come out and declared that he might be able to get it heard in front of a court. It sounds like he is trying to get the job of bringing it to court for Trump.