Politics TRUMP SAYS HE PLANS TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TERMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
I’m not going to read through all these posts, but I want to say that I don’t care which one it is, the president cannot unilaterally remove a constitutional amendment. It’s a slippery slope that could be used against any amendment including freedom of speech, gun rights and freedom of religion. This is the kind of dictatorial move that could lead to civil war.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I’m not going to read through all these posts, but I want to say that I don’t care which one it is, the president cannot unilaterally remove a constitutional amendment. It’s a slippery slope that could be used against any amendment including freedom of speech, gun rights and freedom of religion. This is the kind of dictatorial move that could lead to civil war.
Click to expand...
Since the idea isn't to remove an amendment it isn't anything like that.

Reading more about it (could be all bullshit) this is what the intent was in the first place. The court is where this will end. Not Trump's pen as a dictator.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I’m not going to read through all these posts, but I want to say that I don’t care which one it is, the president cannot unilaterally remove a constitutional amendment. It’s a slippery slope that could be used against any amendment including freedom of speech, gun rights and freedom of religion. This is the kind of dictatorial move that could lead to civil war.
Click to expand...

It's being talked about/threatened for the same reason he mentions the "caravan". It's to scare old white people into voting republican. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
stampedehero said:
The first smart thing he has done. Why should the taxpayer support a child that came here to get a free ride. Many couples will come here with pregnant wife to take the US citizenship. I heard from a friend that France scratched out the right in 1976 and the UK in 1981. We are actually the country that allows this action. However, can they join the armed forces without a US birth right?
Click to expand...

Did you not take civics in high school?

If you don't like birth citizenship, change the Constitution.

Good luck with that.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Why not first just challenge that particular interpretation of the Constitution? Wouldn't that be easier?
Click to expand...

Problem with that is it just opens a can of worms and with a president like trump I can see abuse of power. Would you allow the two SCOTUS's appointed by Trump to be able to be involved in the decision? They were given a lifetime job by Trump and will their loyalty to the position outweigh their possible willingness to thank Trump?

Let's look at it from the opposite perspective. Let's say the 14th amendment said no birther rights and Obama came along and says he wants to write an executive order changing it so there is a birther right. For many years we have followed the law that there is no birther rights and now on a whim Obama thinks he should be able to overwrite it. We have 3 choices

1) continue with the same interpretation that has been applied for many years
2) let congress put forth an addendum to modify the 14th amendment to allow birther citizenship
3) Let Obama write an executive order to change the amendment

Even in this scenario I would say 1 or 2 are acceptable, but 3 should never be an option. When presidents are given too much power we end up walking a very slippery slope of abuse of power and with Trump, that's a scary proposition.
 
CupWizier said:
Problem with that is it just opens a can of worms and with a president like trump I can see abuse of power. Would you allow the two SCOTUS's appointed by Trump to be able to be involved in the decision? They were given a lifetime job by Trump and will their loyalty to the position outweigh their possible willingness to thank Trump?

Let's look at it from the opposite perspective. Let's say the 14th amendment said no birther rights and Obama came along and says he wants to write an executive order changing it so there is a birther right. For many years we have followed the law that there is no birther rights and now on a whim Obama thinks he should be able to overwrite it. We have 3 choices

1) continue with the same interpretation that has been applied for many years
2) let congress put forth an addendum to modify the 14th amendment to allow birther citizenship
3) Let Obama write an executive order to change the amendment

Even in this scenario I would say 1 or 2 are acceptable, but 3 should never be an option. When presidents are given too much power we end up walking a very slippery slope of abuse of power and with Trump, that's a scary proposition.
Click to expand...
Except nobody's trying to "change" the amendment. He (purportedly) believes that this is what the amendment was intended to mean in the first place. If we'd been doing something wrong for 150 years, does that mean we should continue to do so?

For example, when the Supreme Court in 1869 ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that segregation was OK, were we then beholden to accept that as gospel ad infinitum? When the court reversed course on that in Brown v Board of Education 85 years later, should they have not done that because there had been no amendment to correct the wrongful interpretation of the Constitution?

Now understand, I'm not saying that the 14th does or doesn't support birthright citizenship; I'm simply saying that it's debatably unclear, and that it's not unreasonable to challenge decades of precedent and interpretation without engaging the amendment process.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Except nobody's trying to "change" the amendment. He (purportedly) believes that this is what the amendment was intended to mean in the first place. If we'd been doing something wrong for 150 years, does that mean we should continue to do so?

For example, when the Supreme Court in 1869 ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that segregation was OK, were we then beholden to accept that as gospel ad infinitum? When the court reversed course on that in Brown v Board of Education 85 years later, should they have not done that because there had been no amendment to correct the wrongful interpretation of the Constitution?

Now understand, I'm not saying that the 14th does or doesn't support birthright citizenship; I'm simply saying that it's debatably unclear, and that it's not unreasonable to challenge decades of precedent and interpretation without engaging the amendment process.
Click to expand...

If some feel the interpretation is said that there are no birther rights, then rewrite it so the language is more clear. Simple as that. From what I have read and listened to some experts is that the way it has been interpreted is the way it should be.
 
CupWizier said:
If some feel the interpretation is said that there are no birther rights, then rewrite it so the language is more clear. Simple as that. From what I have read and listened to some experts is that the way it has been interpreted is the way it should be.
Click to expand...
Some experts say that. Others say otherwise. No reason not to let the SCOTUS decide. That is, in fact, why it exists.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Why not first just challenge that particular interpretation of the Constitution? Wouldn't that be easier?
Click to expand...

I suppose. And few things are black and white in the constitution, but the actual words of the 14th amendment say if you are born here, you are a citizen. Not much to interpret.
 
Stevenson said:
I suppose. And few things are black and white in the constitution, but the actual words of the 14th amendment say if you are born here, you are a citizen. Not much to interpret.
Click to expand...

The part that PPP seems to not take into account is that so far nobody is challenging the amendment. Trump simply thinks he can write an executive order and change it.
 
CupWizier said:
The part that PPP seems to not take into account is that so far nobody is challenging the amendment. Trump simply thinks he can write an executive order and change it.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think Trump is well aware he can't change the Constitution with an executive order. He's just ginning up the troops, and sadly, it works on some people.
 
Stevenson said:
I suppose. And few things are black and white in the constitution, but the actual words of the 14th amendment say if you are born here, you are a citizen. Not much to interpret.
Click to expand...
If you are born in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It's that second part that's up for interpretation.

Is it territorial jurisdiction or political jurisdiction? Does birthright citizenship of another country (based on the citizenship of the parents) exclude a child from automatically being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US if born on US soil? What was intended when the amendment was first written?

I don't claim to know or have the time to research it properly. The SCOTUS has the time and responsibility to do so, though.
 
Stevenson said:
I don't think so. I think Trump is well aware he can't change the Constitution with an executive order. He's just ginning up the troops, and sadly, it works on some people.
Click to expand...

Trump also says he always tells the truth "when he can". lol
 
CupWizier said:
The part that PPP seems to not take into account is that so far nobody is challenging the amendment. Trump simply thinks he can write an executive order and change it.
Click to expand...

Stevenson said:
I don't think so. I think Trump is well aware he can't change the Constitution with an executive order. He's just ginning up the troops, and sadly, it works on some people.
Click to expand...

My presumption is that his EO is going to be the challenge--not to the amendment, but to the common interpretation thereof. Again, not changing the constitution, just defining existing legislation. Surely there's actual federal legislation on the books outside of the Constitution regarding citizenship; his EO would be affecting that legislation, and then it would be someone using the 14th to challenge his EO that would make it a constitutional issue.

Edit: The text of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 (a) is taken directly from the 14th. If he were to sign an EO, it would affect that statute, presumably by codifying clarification to the jurisdiction clause. Again--not changing the Constitution; only federal statute.

And of course, that's only if this whole thing isn't just Trumpian bluster.
 
Last edited:
I am not one to quote Fox News, but Judge Napolitano explained this very succinctly in this segment.

Sorry, it is just not up for interpretation. In the law, we say something like this is "well settled" or, also, that it is clear by the"four corners of the document."
 
Stevenson said:
I am not one to quote Fox News, but Judge Napolitano explained this very succinctly in this segment.

Sorry, it is just not up for interpretation. In the law, we say something like this is "well settled" or, also, that it is clear by the"four corners of the document."
Click to expand...
Oh no...a judge said that?...

That settles it. We've already had something like 12,367 straight 9-0 Supreme Court decisions.

No way a judge would be wrong.
 
Stevenson said:
I am not one to quote Fox News, but Judge Napolitano explained this very succinctly in this segment.

Sorry, it is just not up for interpretation. In the law, we say something like this is "well settled" or, also, that it is clear by the"four corners of the document."
Click to expand...
Interesting interpretation, that the jurisdiction clause only applies to foreign dignitaries, ie those who would claim "diplomatic immunity" were they to be charged with a crime. I can see the logic in that interpretation. If Trump actually does sign an EO, and it is challenged (as it most assuredly would be), perhaps we shall see if SCOTUS agrees.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
My presumption is that his EO is going to be the challenge--not to the amendment, but to the common interpretation thereof. Again, not changing the constitution, just defining existing legislation. Surely there's actual federal legislation on the books outside of the Constitution regarding citizenship; his EO would be affecting that legislation, and then it would be someone using the 14th to challenge his EO that would make it a constitutional issue.

Edit: The text of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 (a) is taken directly from the 14th. If he were to sign an EO, it would affect that statute, presumably by codifying clarification to the jurisdiction clause. Again--not changing the Constitution; only federal statute.

And of course, that's only if this whole thing isn't just Trumpian bluster.
Click to expand...

Well, it is Trumpian bluster. You know that. Anyone with a brain can see that.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Except nobody's trying to "change" the amendment. He (purportedly) believes that this is what the amendment was intended to mean in the first place. If we'd been doing something wrong for 150 years, does that mean we should continue to do so?

For example, when the Supreme Court in 1869 ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that segregation was OK, were we then beholden to accept that as gospel ad infinitum? When the court reversed course on that in Brown v Board of Education 85 years later, should they have not done that because there had been no amendment to correct the wrongful interpretation of the Constitution?

Now understand, I'm not saying that the 14th does or doesn't support birthright citizenship; I'm simply saying that it's debatably unclear, and that it's not unreasonable to challenge decades of precedent and interpretation without engaging the amendment process.
Click to expand...
Then your reasoning would be even more applicable to the Second Amendment, as it is far murkier and open to interpretation than the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, “it is not unreasonable to challenge decades of precedent and interpretation without engaging the amendment process.” But just try that (as has happened many, many times) and see the gun owners lose their freaking minds. I think natural born citizenship is much more justifiable than unfettered gun ownership. And I’m stunned that any American with any intelligence and moral integrity would even give a second thought to denying rightful citizenship to anyone born in this country.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If you are born in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It's that second part that's up for interpretation.

Is it territorial jurisdiction or political jurisdiction? Does birthright citizenship of another country (based on the citizenship of the parents) exclude a child from automatically being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US if born on US soil? What was intended when the amendment was first written?

I don't claim to know or have the time to research it properly. The SCOTUS has the time and responsibility to do so, though.
Click to expand...

Ah yes - territorial jurisdiction v political juridiction. The argument historically used to deny the vote to native Americans.

If we are going to talk about the history of the amendment it is only fair to consider the history of the argument against it.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Then your reasoning would be even more applicable to the Second Amendment, as it is far murkier and open to interpretation than the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, “it is not unreasonable to challenge decades of precedent and interpretation without engaging the amendment process.” But just try that (as has happened many, many times) and see the gun owners lose their freaking minds. I think natural born citizenship is much more justifiable than unfettered gun ownership.
Click to expand...
And as you know, that's exactly what has happened with gun legislation. Laws get passed. Then they get challenged. Then they're upheld or overturned. Rinse, repeat. Exactly as would happen with this.

Perfect example. Well done, sir.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Oh shit!

That means we are required to give everyone from Nicaragua to Mexico asylum if they want.
Click to expand...
It means we have to follow U.S. law which is in accordance with international law.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
And as you know, that's exactly what has happened with gun legislation. Laws get passed. Then they get challenged. Then they're upheld or overturned. Rinse, repeat. Exactly as would happen with this.

Perfect example. Well done, sir.
Click to expand...

was the 2nd amendment ever changed by executive order by the president? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.
 
CupWizier said:
was the 2nd amendment ever changed by executive order by the president? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
Again, nobody is talking about changing an amendment with EO, just federal statute. And I have no idea if there have ever been any EO's issued on federal gun legislation.

Edit: it appears that in 1998, Bill Clinton signed an executive order banning 50 types of semi-automatic weapons. That would be on par with this theorized EO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top