Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship

[Colonoscopy]

Isn't this basically equivalent to an executive order to ban guns?

In both cases the constitution seems pretty explicit on the issue.

Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

Story:

Loading…

archive.ph

 

[libbity bibbity]

Isn't this basically equivalent to an executive order to ban guns?

In both cases the constitution seems pretty explicit on the issue.

Story:

Loading…

archive.ph

The 2nd amendment is much more clear than the 14th.

 

[Colonoscopy]

.

 

[theiacowtipper]

The 2nd amendment is much more clear than the 14th.

"Well Regulated" is clear?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Twenty-two States Sue to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order​

The lawsuit to block the president’s executive order is the first salvo in what is likely to be a long-running legal fight over immigration policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/us/trump-birthright-citizenship.html

 

[TC Nole OX]

🤣🤣🤣

 

[WSC72]

Isn't this basically equivalent to an executive order to ban guns?

In both cases the constitution seems pretty explicit on the issue.

Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

Story:

Loading…

archive.ph

I thought it was a pretty bad look as well Colon.

 

[BelemNole]

🤣🤣🤣

View embedded media

Typical Fox News - sure it's unconstitutional but the plan is to get it to the clearly partisan SC and hope for a win!

 

[bunsen82]

This is whats going to happen to most of his executive orders.

 

[Rifler]

Push the question to SCOTUS, have the E.O. declared unconstitutional, and attempt to spark a national conversation,.. That's all that this is about,.. It will progress, or it won't.

 

[Aardvark86]

there you go. the system does still have checks.

 

[Tom Paris]

Push the question to SCOTUS, have the E.O. declared unconstitutional, and attempt to spark a national conversation,.. That's all that this is about,.. It will progress, or it won't.

You, knowing that you have a very Trump friendly SC, would love this. If it as a liberal court you wouldn't have posted this.

 

[Rifler]

You, knowing that you have a very Trump friendly SC, would love this. If it as a liberal court you wouldn't have posted this.

No, I'd say the same thing,.. I fully expect SCOTUS to toss this as an E.O.

 

[mnole03]

No, I'd say the same thing,.. I fully expect SCOTUS to toss this as an E.O.

I wouldn’t. This would generally be considered settled law after Wong Kim Ark and the cases that built off it, but this Court has been more than willing to break with precedent.

 

[Rifler]

I wouldn’t. This would generally be considered settled law after Wong Kim Ark and the cases that built off it, but this Court has been more than willing to break with precedent.

Extremely doubtful,... This will get squashed, morph into a constitutional amendment conversation, and then die a quick death...

 

[Colonoscopy]

Extremely doubtful,... This will get squashed, morph into a constitutional amendment conversation, and then die a quick death...

At least you'd expect...

 

[IACub]

Push the question to SCOTUS, have the E.O. declared unconstitutional, and attempt to spark a national conversation,.. That's all that this is about,.. It will progress, or it won't.

Right, that's absolutely Trump's plan. He always loves an intelligent national discourse with input from both sides.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Extremely doubtful,... This will get squashed, morph into a constitutional amendment conversation, and then die a quick death...

So in the end you see it being pointless and going no where.

Because if the court does kick it, there is no way they get 38 states to ratify.

 

[Rifler]

So in the end you see it being pointless and going no where.

Because if the court does kick it, there is no way they get 38 states to ratify.

I'd agree that ratification would be highly unlikely,.. But I still think there's value in birthright citizenship being included in the overall conversation on immigration reform...

 

[Colonoscopy]

Have we ever had a blatant challenge to the constitution like this via executive order?

 

[Bonerfarts]

The 2nd amendment is much more clear than the 14th.

This is correct. "Well regulated milita" is clear as day to me. Regulate those AR-15's out everyone's hands.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I'd agree that ratification would be highly unlikely,.. But I still think there's value in birthright citizenship being included in the overall conversation on immigration reform...

I think it's a fair question; I get the argument against something like an anchor baby.

But how should we feel about a challenge to the constitution via executive order? That's an acceptable way to start a conversation?

 

[Rifler]

I think it's a fair question; I get the argument against something like an anchor baby.

But how should we feel about a challenge to the constitution via executive order? That's an acceptable way to start a conversation?

Sure, why not?... This won't be the first E.O. to be slapped down as unconstitutional...

 

[jneffer]

senator grassely said it best

"But the President’s unilateral action on immigration isn’t just bad policy. It’s contrary to the rule of law. It’s unconstitutional for the executive branch to nullify, or even unilaterally re-write, the immigration laws that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have chosen to enact."

 

[Colonoscopy]

Sure, why not?... This won't be the first E.O. to be slapped down as unconstitutional...

Here's a possible why not: The other EOs may have been much more legitimate challenges to the constitution.

Is it good practice to just issue obviously unconstitutional EOs to simply get a conversation going?

 

[Rifler]

Here's a possible why not: The other EOs may have been much more legitimate challenges to the constitution.

Is it good practice to just issue wildly unconstitutional EOs to simply get the conversation going?

I think the perception of legitimacy becomes a relative thing,.. I say let it play out.

 

[Aardvark86]

Have we ever had a blatant challenge to the constitution like this via executive order?

Well, the steel seizure cases come to mind.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I think the perception of legitimacy becomes a relative thing,.. I say let it play out.

Of course at some point we'll have differing views on the legitimacy of a challenge -- presumably the closer you might get to having a legit request; but on the other end of things we'll also have agreement on what is obviously illegitimate.

And so it would be interesting to compare the legitimacy of other EOs to what we're seeing with this Trump offering.