Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[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

My money says you're the stupid one...……...

A fool and his money are soon parted

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

I will bet you $20.00 Trump could do it by Executive order or through Congress...….

Now prove your point from your previous point...…..

Ok, you are on. I bet that Trump cannot change the Constitution by EO. You are betting that he can.

 

[MarathonMike]

He can add conditions to birthright citizenship which would bring us in line with Socialist Europe. If Obama can decree DACA then Trump can certainly add conditions. Take a look at this map and see the handful of countries in the world including ours that offer unconditional birthright citizenship.

Jus soli - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Common sense is lacking very badly in this country anymore, because anyone with a brain should know that a child born out in a box car by an illegal Mexican couple is a Mexican national born by a Mexican couple here illegally. Duh !!!!!!

Wrong. That's an American. Just as American as you will ever be.

 

[Deno]

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

My money says you're the stupid one...……...

A fool and his money are soon parted

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

Why on Earth would you make a wager with a loser who will 100% welsh if he loses?

What a Flucking Hoot....

All you libtards have welshed on the election.....

He's not betting a libtard like yourself...……

There is no honor among you Scum Bags...…..

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Our Constitution.

our?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution.

our?

if not our, it must be mine. i know my Constitution; unlike the right wing.

 

[Deno]

My money says you're the stupid one...……...

A fool and his money are soon parted

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

I will bet you $20.00 Trump could do it by Executive order or through Congress...….

Now prove your point from your previous point...…..

Ok, you are on. I bet that Trump cannot change the Constitution by EO. You are betting that he can.

This is correct...……

Note: I didn't say he would do it because that wouldn't be Permanent.

But the $20.00 bet stands that it is possible....

After you bet I will explain How I can prove it...……..

 

[Frankeneinstein]

if not our, it must be mine.

did you bring it with you when you escaped?

i know my Constitution; unlike the right wing.

I think that is a lie but lets see, do Americans have the right to bear arms?
does it allow for gun control by the government?

 

[danielpalos]

if not our, it must be mine.

did you bring it with you when you escaped?

i know my Constitution; unlike the right wing.

I think that is a lie but lets see, do Americans have the right to bear arms?
does it allow for gun control by the government?

I am a federalist and subscribe to the federal doctrine. I know my own doctrine, unlike the right wing.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A fool and his money are soon parted

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

I will bet you $20.00 Trump could do it by Executive order or through Congress...….

Now prove your point from your previous point...…..

Ok, you are on. I bet that Trump cannot change the Constitution by EO. You are betting that he can.

This is correct...……

Note: I didn't say he would do it because that wouldn't be Permanent.

But the $20.00 bet stands that it is possible....

After you bet I will explain How I can prove it...……..

If it is not permanent it does not matter.

 

[candycorn]

I hope and pray he does....

And then every Republican on the ballot has to run on that? Fantastic.

Why would every Republican have to run on that? Not every Republican supports that decision, and trump doesn't speak for everyRepublican, he speaks for himself.

When the head of your party (the President) does something, you are going to be asked if you support or oppose it.

The president isn't the head of a political party. Neither party has a "head" or a leader. A president can belong to a political party, but he doesn't speak for that party nor does the party always agree with everything a president says.

But yes, you are right that candidates will be asked if they support the decision, and they can answer that question on an individual basis.

That is either a blatant denial of political reality or a completely unsophisticated assessment. Yes the President is the head of the Party; i.e. it’s most influential member.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I am a federalist and subscribe to the federal doctrine. I know my own doctrine, unlike the right wing.

who coulda saw that dodge coming...of course you are, the constitution tripped you up again, unlike it does with the right wing

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

and now everyone can see how well you know the constitution...for Americans those were two simple "YES" answers.

 

[Deno]

Would you care to make a wager?

Sure.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does not apply to children of illegals, then I will leave this board for good.

If the SCOTUS says that the 14th as written does apply to children of illegals, then you leave this board for good.

I will bet you $20.00 Trump could do it by Executive order or through Congress...….

Now prove your point from your previous point...…..

Ok, you are on. I bet that Trump cannot change the Constitution by EO. You are betting that he can.

This is correct...……

Note: I didn't say he would do it because that wouldn't be Permanent.

But the $20.00 bet stands that it is possible....

After you bet I will explain How I can prove it...……..

If it is not permanent it does not matter.

We both know an EO can be undone...…..

If Trump did it by EO what recourse "excluding another administration"

would you have other than the Supreme Court?

Do you not agree he could do it with Congress?

 

[healthmyths]

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment.

and like the typical liberal you "pretend something else is the point" and that that is what we are talking about...I would tell you to go back and look at my post for your answer but I will save you the trouble...
My claim is that they circumvented the 1st with hate speech laws, that is what I claimed, you needed to reword it so you could pretend you had a point

We do not call the press enemy of the state.

neither do enemies of the state

Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law.

And we are back to pretending that is the point.
I do agree with the ruling, but the point you are hiding from is that the left makes believe it is more outrageous to temporarily separate [or as you probably prefer "ripped"] non-American children from adults being arrested [or otherwise taken into custody of some sort] than it is to rip them from the womb...ROE V WADE was just another way for you to pretend something else was the point being made.

This is the way our government is designed.

You will need to keep that in mind in the future

When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution.

When she claimed it was necessary to go down the slippery slope to enact stricter gun laws...it that is true will you admit that is what she is doing? if not then why even disagree with me?

By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree.

you mean the make believe standards you assigned to me and that if the ballot box gets it wrong you should be allowed to remove the president simply cuz ya saw it in the fake news media?

As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

And none of that [especially the ones where gop went along] means gun control is not circumventing the constitution, in fact the only thing it means is if you can justify those actions and not admit to hypocrisy then trump is just as justified as you are...that's what makes it a slippery slope genius.

You are the one pretending. Your pres does not call the press enemy of the state? What hate speech law are you talking about. Kinda funny when asked for examples you can not give one just speek in generalities. You want to keep my attention give me the law, name it. None of what you are talking about circumveted the process as it was designed. Give me the Pelosi quote! Back your shit up or be ignored.

he calls the media the enemy of the people because they are. most of the media in nothing more than the propaganda arm of the dem/lib party. we might as well rename them Pravda.

IN Fact... one of the most left leaning newspapers is the Tampabay Times (formerly St. Petersburg Times) also known for many years by locals as "Pravda West"!
And even in his later years, as a more consistent conservative, he seldom turned down an interview with reporters from the most liberal media outlet in the county, the newspaper then called the St. Petersburg Times and, in some circles, Pravda West.
DeWitt: Even with political enemies, Murray Grubbs always was engaging

Also this "Pravda West" is owned by the Poynter Institute a "non-profit" that also runs Politifact.org or again another "Pravda by product.
Check out this web site for more on how biased Poltifact.org is!
This is how "MSM" bias works. Check this story!
PolitiFact Bias

 

[ThisIsMe]

I hope and pray he does....

And then every Republican on the ballot has to run on that? Fantastic.

Why would every Republican have to run on that? Not every Republican supports that decision, and trump doesn't speak for everyRepublican, he speaks for himself.

When the head of your party (the President) does something, you are going to be asked if you support or oppose it.

The president isn't the head of a political party. Neither party has a "head" or a leader. A president can belong to a political party, but he doesn't speak for that party nor does the party always agree with everything a president says.

But yes, you are right that candidates will be asked if they support the decision, and they can answer that question on an individual basis.

That is either a blatant denial of political reality or a completely unsophisticated assessment. Yes the President is the head of the Party; i.e. it’s most influential member.

Incorrect. Again, a political party has no leader. A political party is based on a certain ideology, and ideology has no leader. Not everyones political ideology is the same. It varies from person to person.

A president can represent a political party, but he cannot speak for the party as a whole, because not everyone has the same ideology.

When have you ever heard a president say "I'm the leader of the (Republican or democrat) party?

 

[danielpalos]

I am a federalist and subscribe to the federal doctrine. I know my own doctrine, unlike the right wing.

who coulda saw that dodge coming...of course you are, the constitution tripped you up again, unlike the right wing

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

and now everyone can see how well you know the constitution...for Americans those were two simple "YES" answers.

better than You, every time.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

better than You, every time.

You only feel that way because I'm American

 

[beagle9]

Common sense is lacking very badly in this country anymore, because anyone with a brain should know that a child born out in a box car by an illegal Mexican couple is a Mexican national born by a Mexican couple here illegally. Duh !!!!!!

Wrong. That's an American. Just as American as you will ever be.

Wrong... Two illegal Mexicans for example, having a child between them does not make the child an American period. The child if conceived on Mexican soil by it's parents who are Mexican Nationals, yet is then born illegally on American soil does NOT make the child American. Even if the couple in hiding here illegally were to have sex, and we're to give birth in hiding or while being here illegally does not make the child an American citizen period. The child belongs to the parents who are here illegally, and the child and parents if deported all go together back home to the parents country.

End the idiocy, and go back to having a rational mind about these things people. Whom ever figured that a child who is born of an illegal couple just because of the dirt that lay up under their feet, (some how makes the child an American citizen), uhhh was/is a complete psycho con artist from hell in my opinion.

 

[danielpalos]

better than You, every time.

You only feel that way because I'm American

I Only feel that way, Because you are clueless and Causeless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If immigrants were not under our jurisdiction, the courts would not be able to prosecute them. If they are on U.S. soil or under our flag / control, they are "within the jurisdiction."

Yeah, you misunderstand the use of "jurisdiction" in this case. It does not simply refer to being held accountable to everyday laws while you're in the country, because the same holds true for our citizens when they go abroad, but they're still OUR citizens.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" was meant specifically to include freed slaves and their descendants, and specifically to EXCLUDE people whose primary allegiance was not to the United States. At the time of the writing, they were thinking primarily of Native Americans - who are considered to be subject to tribal jurisdiction - and the offspring of people who were here for purposes other than becoming part of this country, such as perhaps soldiers in another nation's military or diplomats from other countries. Under their interpretation, according to their own writings, that would also include people who are not legal residents of the country.