Yeah, that would have been as effective as Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Can't change the constitution with an EO...
Day 1: Obama signs executive order making guns illegal
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
You can if you believe that the SCOTUS is more loyal to you than the constitution.
We will see if that's true or not.
Cry, bitch! Cry, cry, cry until those sad tears run dry........
Any chance there are backdoor discussions between orange turd and the illegitimate justices on what they would go for?
I would say it's extremely high.
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
This will be an interesting one to watch.
This will be an interesting one to watch.
If we get rid of anchor babies, that’s a huge win. Having said that, he will blow up the economy and screw up other stuff so it won’t matter
As has been explained "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means that the government can arrest them for crimes. Illegal immigrants can be arrested for crimes. The people who can't be arrested for crimes are people who get diplomatic immunity or in the extremely unlikely case of an occupying foreign military force.
Everyone else can be arrested for crimes. Therefore the children of everyone else who are born in the United States are US citizens per the 14th amendment. It is exceedingly clear, the case law behind it has been clear for 125 years. There has been no technology or political changes which warrant re-looking at the 14th amendment as it's a very simple and clear amendment that has been interpreted the same way since it was ratified.
Don't like it, change the constitution.
Honest question-
If all the previous anchor babies got to stay, would you be fine with the EO then being the law of the land going forward? That is like 4 Million people.
It’s not my area of expertise but how can the constitution grant a right to a non citizen?
If the constitution didn't say that birthright citizenship was a thing and we politically wanted to get rid of birthright citizenship, it honestly wouldn't bother me all that much. Not every country has birthright citizenship. The issue itself of birthright citizenship isn't exactly a dealbreaker for me.
My main concern here is not the effects, so much as the whole point of the constitution being the supreme law of the land and the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution without regard for current political issues, current politicians in office, etc etc.
If the SCOTUS says that the 14th amendment doesn't mean what it clearly says and has been interpreted to say for 125 years, the disturbing thing isn't the end of birthright citizenship, it's that the SCOTUS will throw the constitution out for Donald Trump.
He's already getting a massive benefit of the doubt on EVERYTHING that no one has ever gotten before. If the SCOTUS is the refs than Trump is Patrick Mahomes. What I fear is that the SCOTUS will decide they can change the rules for Trump.
And if that's the case they can just rule that he's president for life and to dissolve congress at that point. If 14th amendment doesn't mean anything than none of it does. I will consider them overturning the 14th amendment to be equal to the enabling acts. The point where we stop being a democracy with rules and we start being a dictatorship.
I would be fine with a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship but you cant change the constitution by EO. That would be a disaster.
The constitution grants numerous rights to any and all people merely residing inside the country...
This is actually pretty correct, for the most part the Constitution essentially governs what goes on in the US's jurisdiction. It doesn't make very many differences between citizen and non citizen other than governing that people born in and under the US's jurisdiction are citizens regardless of anything else.
Non citizens still get the right to a trial, the right to free speech etc etc.
I think it's about being born in a place where the US has jurisdiction, and being a US citizen as a result of that. In modern times that would be a US military base, or like John McCain at the time, Panama.
Well John McCain was a citizen regardless because his parents were citizens.
There was some out to lunch folks who considered him being born in Panama to be an issue in regards to him being eligible to run for president. But natural born citizen has always been treated as you being a citizen at birth.
So even if John McCain was born outside of US Jurisdiction he would have clearly still been a citizen due to his parents being citizens.
Executive order can't achieve this, Trump will find this out. I expect SCOTUS to rule against him.
I think Mexicans could end up being more conservative in the long run with religion and family structure being traditional characteristics in their culture.
I think Mexicans could end up being more conservative in the long run with religion and family structure being traditional characteristics in their culture.
They are a citizen as soon as they are born. Per the constitution.
Honest question
If all previous guns got to stay, would you be fine with the EO then being the law of the land going forward? It's like 400 million guns.
Answer it
One of the first E.O.s signed by Obama removed federal sin tax exemptions on tobacco purchased on Indian reservations.
My cigarettes doubled in price overnight thanks to that jackass.
My cigarettes doubled in price overnight thanks to that jackass.
I understand your point and it is valid. I think the problem most people have is that everyone knows that it was intended to give rights to slaves and not our current situation. I do agree that if they want to change it, it should go through the process to amend it.
No
But that is where the grey area comes in when you are interpreting things in different eras and societal factors. To me that is an apples and oranges argument, to others it is exactly the same.
Someone had a funny analogy yesterday on this topic.
If a father goes out and robs a bank and gets arrested for it, should his kids get to keep the money?
If a father goes out and robs a bank and gets arrested for it, should his kids get to keep the money?
So you're allowed to pick and choose, which parts of the Constitution you want to be able to amend with an EO? Seems like a slippery slope as the next President could do the same to the 2nd
That is where the process to amend the constitution comes in.
But if the SCOTUS can throw out the 14th amendment because Donald Trump wants them to than there isn't anything else they can't just throw out for Trump. I'm sure the SCOTUS could find themselves a justification to make him president for life and dissolve congress at that point.
I don't know, read the order. Seems like there is a constitutional question. That's why we have a SC
No I don't. If they are going to amend it, it should be done in the correct way.
I was arguing that there is grey area in this situation which is why people have varying opinions on what the 14th means and justifies.
I know you won't believe this but most conservatives haven't been thrilled with this supreme court. Outside of Roe, they have been largely disappointing especially ACB. I don't think there is any guarantee that they care or will do "what Trump wants".
Unfortunately for you libtards, it's not in the constitution and it's VERY clear the framers didn't intend for that. Shut up
They purposefully bought him time on criminal charges and decided he had immunity from anything he did while communicating with a cabinet official. Even when it was to push a coup on his own behalf.
Or maybe they thought that was the right ruling on those issues. Not everything is singularly about Trump.
For a group of people concerned with population loss these policies are counterproductive.
Oh, wait, I forgot the fine print. They are worried about a population drop of the right kind of people. I wonder what they are looking for in new citizens....
Can I start with ones that wont cost the US government 200 Billion dollars?
