A couple of questions for Trump voters

[RonaldMexico]

1. Do you believe that the president should be able to stop birthright citizenship by executive order?

2. If yes, how do explain an executive order being able to negate a constitutional amendment?

Thanks.

 

[BlIIlken2]

Bump

 

[Chishawk1425]

Why are you an absolute Idiot?

 

[RonaldMexico]

Why are you an absolute Idiot?

Is this aimed at me?

 

[Chishawk1425]

Is this aimed at me?

Did you vote for Trump? I asked a question based on the OP

 

[RonaldMexico]

Did you vote for Trump? I asked a question based on the OP

No.

 

[Chishawk1425]

No.

Then no, not for you

 

[RonaldMexico]

So, nobody voted for Trump?

 

[seminoleed]

So, nobody voted for Trump?

It's actually contingent on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the clause. If Trump appeals the stopping of it and it gets that far, then yes, I think an EO is appropriate. But no President can defy the Constitution (Biden excepted, of course.)

 

[RonaldMexico]

It's actually contingent on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the clause. If Trump appeals the stopping of it and it gets that far, then yes, I think an EO is appropriate. But no President can defy the Constitution (Biden excepted, of course.)

The language in the clause is very specific. What is left to be interpreted?

 

[Moral]

Not a Trump voter but some people are making the claim that the 14th is invalid because it wasn't ratified properly. When it was ratified the South was under military occupation or something like that. It will be interesting to see where it goes with the courts being like they are.

 

[Sharky1203]

1. Do you believe that the president should be able to stop birthright citizenship by executive order?

2. If yes, how do explain an executive order being able to negate a constitutional amendment?

Thanks.

No

 

[Titanhawk2]

1. Do you believe that the president should be able to stop birthright citizenship by executive order?

2. If yes, how do explain an executive order being able to negate a constitutional amendment?

Thanks.

It raises a constitutional question, of which there is no current answer to. Not sure just Trump voters can see that. You should read the order

 

[doughuddl2]

1. Do you believe that the president should be able to stop birthright citizenship by executive order?

2. If yes, how do explain an executive order being able to negate a constitutional amendment?

Thanks.

Not a Trump voter.

Tell me how to stop Chinese women who book flights to the US through a business designed for this mission to stay 30 days.

See a doctor twice while here.

Give birth and rack up a $48k bill.

Declare poverty and have the US tax payer pay the bill.

Return back to China with their new baby US citizen with full benefits like you.

For or against that?

 

[Moral]

Not a Trump voter.

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

Not a Trump voter.

Tell me how to stop Chinese women who book flights to the US through a business designed for this mission to stay 30 days.

See a doctor twice while here.

Give birth and rack up a $48k bill.

Declare poverty and have the US tax payer pay the bill.

Return back to China with their new baby US citizen with full benefits like you.

For or against that?

Not what he asked.

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Can that be terminated by EO?

If you'd like to discuss amending that, then state that. Otherwise answer the OP's question.


Disclaimer: I'm not saying your premise is correct/incorrect, just getting you on target.

 

[RonaldMexico]

Not a Trump voter.

Tell me how to stop Chinese women who book flights to the US through a business designed for this mission to stay 30 days.

See a doctor twice while here.

Give birth and rack up a $48k bill.

Declare poverty and have the US tax payer pay the bill.

Return back to China with their new baby US citizen with full benefits of you.

For or against that?

Examples of this happening? I have never once heard of this and it’s pretty obvious that this is effort is aimed at Mexico and Central America.

Either way, if that is the price to pay for upholding the constitution, I am good with it. If you set the precedent saying this isn’t what the founders intended and can be overturn because a president wants to, don’t get upset when a democratic president comes in and wipes out the 2A or redefines free speech. If that is allowed we now live in a monarchy. Want to change the amendment, get the votes.

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

@Here_4_a_Day - Day Shift
@RicoSuave102954 - Victim Persona
@Champ_Kind_whammy - Night Shift

 

[Rifler]

1. No, an E.O. cannot by itself "change" the constitution.
2. The E.O. in question would not negate the constitution. Rather it could:
a. Initiate a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment by current SCOTUS.
b. Spark a conversation regarding the viability of a new constitutional amendment.
c. Confirm public opinion on birthright citizenship.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

Not a Trump voter.

Tell me how to stop Chinese women who book flights to the US through a business designed for this mission to stay 30 days.

See a doctor twice while here.

Give birth and rack up a $48k bill.

Declare poverty and have the US tax payer pay the bill.

Return back to China with their new baby US citizen with full benefits like you.

For or against that?

There's a lot of stuff happening in your example that aren't covered by the constitution that can easily be resolved.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

@Here_4_a_Day - Day Shift
@RicoSuave102954 - Victim Persona
@Champ_Kind_whammy - Night Shift

Champ and Arbor’s posting style is identical….

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

a. Initiate a reinterpretation of the 14 amendment by current SCOTUS.

How would YOU reinterpret: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

[Rifler]

How would YOU reinterpret: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I wouldn't, that job falls to SCOTUS,.. and I expect that they will support the current interpretation, and negate the E.O.

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

I wouldn't, that job falls to SCOTUS,.. and I expect that they will support the current interpretation, and negate the E.O.

Entertain us with a possible reinterpretation. Like, play the game, "If I were SCOTUS for a day."

 

[RonaldMexico]

It raises a constitutional question, of which there is no current answer to. Not sure just Trump voters can see that. You should read the order

I did. What exactly is the “constitutional question”?

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I wouldn't, that job falls to SCOTUS,.. and I expect that they will support the current interpretation, and negate the E.O.

Is it really that difficult to say Trump is a ****ing idiot and that you don’t issue EOs to change the Constitution?

This is not a ****ing monarchy, Trump is not king, and he doesn’t have the authority to issue edicts that everyone must step in line with to undermine the Constitution.

Stop normalizing stupid shit. Trump is a ****ing idiot and doesn’t understand or doesn’t care how our republic is supposed to work.

 

[Rifler]

Is it really that difficult to say you don’t issue EOs to change the Constitution?

The E.O. is not intended to "change" the constitution,.. The E.O. is merely a tool to initiate a SCOTUS review of the 14th amendment to confirm the current interpretation,... I fully expect that SCOTUS will support that interpretation and negate the E.O.

There is nothing wrong with having a national conversation on topics like this...

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Not a Trump voter.

Tell me how to stop Chinese women who book flights to the US through a business designed for this mission to stay 30 days.

See a doctor twice while here.

Give birth and rack up a $48k bill.

Declare poverty and have the US tax payer pay the bill.

Return back to China with their new baby US citizen with full benefits like you.

For or against that?

I’ll bite. I think this should not be allowed, but an executive order is not the way to do it. It requires a change to the constitution. If a president could just EO changes to the constitution they would be a king. They could change rules about their own role. They could change the 2A, worst of all they could change the 1A.

I am 100% for a constitutional convention where we hash out how to modernize key elements of the constitution and this would be one I support.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

@Here_4_a_Day - Day Shift
@RicoSuave102954 - Victim Persona
@Champ_Kind_whammy - Night Shift

Doesn't the wife have a list of things you need to be cleaning today while she's at work?

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

Doesn't the wife have a list of things you need to be cleaning today while she's at work?

Good morning!

 

[RileyHawk]

1. No, an E.O. cannot by itself "change" the constitution.
2. The E.O. in question would not negate the constitution. Rather it could:
a. Initiate a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment by current SCOTUS.
b. Spark a conversation regarding the viability of a new constitutional amendment.
c. Confirm public opinion on birthright citizenship.

That's simply not true. The EO provides a directive that must be followed. One that is in direct conflict with the Constitution. This is another lame deflection attempt on your part.

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

The E.O. is not intended to "change" the constitution,.. The E.O. is merely a tool to initiate a SCOTUS review of the 14th amendment to confirm the current interpretation,... I fully expect that SCOTUS will support that interpretation and negate the E.O.

There is nothing wrong with having a national conversation on topics like this...

THen answer post #24!

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

The E.O. is merely a tool to initiate a SCOTUS review of the 14th amendment to confirm the current interpretation,...

 

[SIXERS24]

Trump can't change the 14th Amendment
Biden can't create the 28th Amendment

 

[Gus is dead]

Not what he asked.

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Can that be terminated by EO?

If you'd like to discuss amending that, then state that. Otherwise answer the OP's question.


Disclaimer: I'm not saying your premise is correct/incorrect, just getting you on target.

Ive already stated this in the other thread.

I dont think its clear what the 'subject to the jurisdiction' part means clearly. Seem pretty vague and legalistic.

I do not believe an EO can circumvent the constitution.

I do KNOW that it is up to the SCOTUS to decide if it does. Pretty simple IMO.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Ive already stated this in the other thread.

I dont think its clear what the 'subject to the jurisdiction' part means clearly. Seem pretty vague and legalistic.

I do not believe an EO can circumvent the constitution.

I do KNOW that it is up to the SCOTUS to decide if it does. Pretty simple IMO.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is fairly simple. It means you're subject to the laws of the land.

Is a pregnant mother from Mexico driving 110 mph down the highway subject to speeding laws? If so, she's subject to the laws thereof.

Conversely, if a person is not subject to the laws thereof, then they're not subject to immigration laws and therefore could not be deported.

The 14th amendment is very specific and easily discernable. HOWEVER, we now have a loaded SCOTUS and it would not surprise me if they upheld the EO. They've already made presidents immune from crimes.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I am a trump fan, and this birthright thing, I have not studied enough. I honestly have not enough info . I know the queen of england, now the king, wants to rule over everyone and call them citizens. that's not good.

 

[thewop]

1. Do you believe that the president should be able to stop birthright citizenship by executive order?

2. If yes, how do explain an executive order being able to negate a constitutional amendment?

Thanks.

1. No

However, it's a worthy debate to figure out whether birthright citizenship is to apply to illegal aliens who have kids, and neither parent is a legal US resident.

I believe firmly that's where this should land, whether by court interpretation or whether Congress codifies it. Preferably it's done by congress eventually but if the courts enable a short term interpretation that requires at least 1 parent to be a legal permanent is resident, I'm good with it.