Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[danielpalos]

As you can see from the posts here, once again the left demostrates their utter disdain for our borders, our immigration laws.
They want to see a system stay in place that allows people from all over the world to fly into the U.S., pop out a kid, then fly back home. It's all about taking advanrage of government handouts, and the American left wants it.

the right wing doesn't care about natural rights, unless it is Specifically about guns.

 

[Claudette]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.

If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.

the mother was in the US.

She was in the US illegally. She didn't have permission to be in the US.

Whatever her nationality is that the jurisdiction for the kids nationality.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I believe this is the way to get it to the Supreme Court and the possibility to get a ruling on anchor babies.

I agree, this does in fact need to head to the SCOTUS.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I do not like the birthright citizenship, but I am not a fan of trying to determine "intent", to me that just opens so many more doors that can be used to change so many things.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.

If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.

the mother was in the US.

She was in the US illegally. Whatever her nationality is that the jurisdiction for the kids nationality.

Maybe we will get to find out if SOCTUS agrees with my view or yours.

 

[AntonToo]

As you can see from the posts here, once again the left demostrates their utter disdain for our borders, our immigration laws.
They want to see a system stay in place that allows people from all over the world to fly into the U.S., pop out a kid, then fly back home. It's all about taking advanrage of government handouts, and the American left wants it.

American immigration law is that if you are born here you are an American citizen.

Why do you have disdain for that law and Constitution that plainly states it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean the proper role of checks and balances in challenging an interpretation of an Amendment?

No, I mean with no regard to Constitutonal Amendments. Something is Constitutionally protected when the SCOTUS says it is.

Actually, no that isn't how it works.

The SCOUTS says that a law is either acceptable (does not violate the limits of the Constitution) to the Constitutional limits or it is not and must be either dropped or rewritten.

You're not saying anything any different. If the law bans a behavior, they may rule the law unconstitutional and state that the banned behavior is constitutionally protected.

See: Citizens United.

 

[oreo]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I believe this is the way to get it to the Supreme Court and the possibility to get a ruling on anchor babies.

Well you didn't do so well with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh-- They both came ouf of the gate in year 2006 as G,W, Bush nominees to Federal District Court of Appeals. At a time when Democrats were the majority in the Senate and could have easily rejected them as they had done with so many other of G.W's nominees. These two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Diane Fienstein & several other prominent democrats voted for confirmation for both Brett Kavanaugh & Niel Gorsuch.

The only reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch is because they were still pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee Merrick Garland.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Now back to the topic--under the 5th amendment of the Constitution.

"Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it."
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You can read it yourself by clicking the above link. You'll note that in the article the President has NOTHING to do with 5th amendment of the Constitution.

When are you people going to stop letting him make fools out of you?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As you can see from the posts here, once again the left demostrates their utter disdain for our borders, our immigration laws.
They want to see a system stay in place that allows people from all over the world to fly into the U.S., pop out a kid, then fly back home. It's all about taking advanrage of government handouts, and the American left wants it.

American immigration law is that if you are born here you are an American citizen.

Why do you have disdain for that law and Constitution that plainly states it?

The only intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure that former slaves were granted citizenship.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No one is changing or repealing any amendment. It would simply be clarified.

 

[Meister]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I believe this is the way to get it to the Supreme Court and the possibility to get a ruling on anchor babies.

Well you didn't do so well with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh-- They both came ouf of the gate in year 2006 as G,W, Bush nominees to Federal District Court of Appeals. At a time when Democrats were the majority in the Senate and could have easily rejected them as they had done with so many other of G.W's nominees. These two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Diane Fienstein & several other prominent democrats voted for confirmation for both Brett Kavanaugh & Niel Gorsuch.

The only reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch is because they were still pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee Merrick Garland.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Now back to the topic--under the 5th amendment of the Constitution.

"Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it."
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You can read it yourself by clicking the above link. You'll note that in the article the President has NOTHING to do with 5th amendment of the Constitution.

When are you people going to stop letting him make fools out of you?

Nice rabbit trail....I guess

 

[caddo kid]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Trump is a moron that NEVER ATTENDED a CIVICS CLASS

ALL Trump ever did was go out and grab strange ASS

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Former Dimocrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid:

 

[80zephyr]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I believe this is the way to get it to the Supreme Court and the possibility to get a ruling on anchor babies.

I agree, this does in fact need to head to the SCOTUS.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I do not like the birthright citizenship, but I am not a fan of trying to determine "intent", to me that just opens so many more doors that can be used to change so many things.

Actually, you have that bass ackwards. Intent is the clarifier, while the words can be misinterpreted.

Mark

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I believe this is the way to get it to the Supreme Court and the possibility to get a ruling on anchor babies.

I agree, this does in fact need to head to the SCOTUS.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I do not like the birthright citizenship, but I am not a fan of trying to determine "intent", to me that just opens so many more doors that can be used to change so many things.

Actually, you have that bass ackwards. Intent is the clarifier, while the words can be misinterpreted.

Mark

We shall see how the only 9 people that matter look at it.

 

[AntonToo]

Former Dimocrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid:

Damn that Harry Reid for issuing an Excutive Order like that to unilaterally over-ride Constitution....oh wait.

 

[AntonToo]

No one is changing or repealing any amendment. It would simply be clarified.

By our dummy president that can't concentrate long enough to read a page? No thanks.

 

[Meister]

No one is changing or repealing any amendment. It would simply be clarified.

By our dummy president that can't concentrate long enough to read a page? No thanks.

No, but with the help of the Supreme Court.
Sheeesh, you really are dense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure that former slaves were granted citizenship.

Too bad for you, it doesn't say that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one is changing or repealing any amendment. It would simply be clarified.

By our dummy president that can't concentrate long enough to read a page? No thanks.

No, but with the help of the Supreme Court.
Sheeesh, you really are dense.

The supreme Court cannot write or rewrite the moron's EOs.

 

[TheDude]

Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They were stupid enough to vote for him
They believe anything he rants about

This is code for "I'm a loser, but it's because I'm smart and you're stupid". A participation trophy of sorts. Outside those like yourself who are seeking self affirmation, I don't suspect anyone believes you're smart "rightwinger".

Once again "rightwinger" is ill-informed despite his declaration of a supreme mind...................EDUCATE YOURSELVES. I hope Trump cleans this mess up too. He's the guy to do it.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution