jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
Again, that all sounds noble, it makes me warm and fuzzy inside...but **** warm and fuzzy...it’s time to do the right thing for the right people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
candycorn
Diamond Member
None at all. He should try to overturn a Constitutional amendment with an EO. Lol
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,441
- 2,180
Was it ever challenged in court the way people interpret it today?
It had to be
Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 30,483
- 31,309
- 2,945
Nope. It's never been adjudicated. It will be now, though. Guaranteeed.
candycorn
Diamond Member
He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?
United States is one of only two developed countries to maintain birthright citizenship (the other is Canada). Trump knows that an executive order will immediately be challenged in court, and then taken to the Supreme Court. That’s his goal. So no, an executive order won’t immediately take effect, and even an act of Congress would be litigated.
Nice try, gator bait.
Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 30,483
- 31,309
- 2,945
Nope. It's never been adjudicated. Ever.
Something else, and this is a more recent trend, I think about 7 countries have also revoked birthright citizenship over the last 20 years.
percysunshine
Diamond Member
I am guessing ‘natural born’ does not include c-section.
All you people delivered by c-section have to leave!
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.
well named
poorly undertitled
- Oct 2, 2018
- 432
- 84
- 80
For those interested in some of the legal background on the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, here is a 2006 article written by a 2017 Trump nominee to the 5th circuit court of appeals.
"The Fourteenth Amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Repeal proponents contend that this language does not apply to the children of aliens – whether legal or illegal (with the possible exception of lawful permanent residents) – because such persons are not “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction.” But text, history, judicial precedent, and Executive Branch interpretation confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches most U.S.-born children of aliens, including illegal aliens.
We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause. To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey. Common usage confirms this understanding. When we speak of a business that is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency, it must follow the laws of that agency, whether it likes it or not. When we speak of an individual who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court, he must follow the judgments and orders of that court, whether he likes it or not. As Justice Scalia noted just a year ago, when a statute renders a particular class of persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress “has made clear its intent to extend its laws” to them.
Of course, when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Howard Stern need not swear allegiance to the FCC to be bound by Commission orders. Nor is being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. limited to those who have always complied with U.S. law. Criminals cannot immunize themselves from prosecution by violating Title 18. Likewise, aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, illegal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law.
Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory...."
He goes on to discuss the history of jurisprudence surrounding jus soli citizenship and the drafting of the 14th amendment:We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause. To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey. Common usage confirms this understanding. When we speak of a business that is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency, it must follow the laws of that agency, whether it likes it or not. When we speak of an individual who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court, he must follow the judgments and orders of that court, whether he likes it or not. As Justice Scalia noted just a year ago, when a statute renders a particular class of persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress “has made clear its intent to extend its laws” to them.
Of course, when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Howard Stern need not swear allegiance to the FCC to be bound by Commission orders. Nor is being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. limited to those who have always complied with U.S. law. Criminals cannot immunize themselves from prosecution by violating Title 18. Likewise, aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, illegal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law.
Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory...."
"Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected espe- cially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
I think the history makes very clear that the amendment extends birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, and that this right cannot be overturned by executive order.Mr. HOWARD. ... this amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected espe- cially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
"The proposition before us ... 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. ... I am in favor of doing so. ... We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 30,483
- 31,309
- 2,945
Your interpretation of jurisdiction is wrong.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,717
- 91,562
- 2,605
I'm going to show you a photo of a creature which absolutely terrifies pseudocons. It causes them to curl up in a ball, shit their pants, and whimper.
It is a creature more terrifying than a Muslim suicide bomber, more horrifying than a transsexual, more disgusting than a negro on food stamps. It is a creature so unbelievably frightening, the pseudocon propagandists had to invent a new term for it.
Brace yourself.
Ready?
Watch out for the ANCHOR BABIES!!!! AAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
OH GOD PLEASE NO, NOT THE ANCHOR BABIES....
It is a creature more terrifying than a Muslim suicide bomber, more horrifying than a transsexual, more disgusting than a negro on food stamps. It is a creature so unbelievably frightening, the pseudocon propagandists had to invent a new term for it.
Brace yourself.
Ready?
Watch out for the ANCHOR BABIES!!!! AAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
OH GOD PLEASE NO, NOT THE ANCHOR BABIES....
candycorn
Diamond Member
Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.
Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,544
- 360
How stupid does a person have to be, particularly one who occupies the Oval Office, to think that he has the right to change the Constitution of the United States by signing an order? Amending the Constitution is a long and arduous procedure. Isn't there even one lawyer in the federal government anymore? Unbelievable!!!
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
so you seem to be saying it's ok to do bullshit things as long as you get what you want.
gee. how did this bucket of shit become an ocean again???
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Let me tell you what is going to happen, Trump will push this issue to the SCOTUS which will rule in Trumps favor and the left will freak out.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,717
- 91,562
- 2,605
You've been wrong so many times before, thus it is no surprise you wouldn't stop now.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
During an American Military Operation Over Western Irak a Refueling Aircraft Got Lost- Started by GLASNOST
- Replies: 1
-
-
U.S. Air Force refueler crashes in Iraq while supporting Iran war- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 8
