Trump to enforce 14th Amendment

[Sam7sf]

We can only hope.

All this blather about the caravan (invasion) and walls, troops, etc etc.

I had the passing thought last night, "What if he invoked the 2nd???"

As in "To all citizens, our southern border is being invaded and we require you to lend assistance"

Wouldnt that be somethin.

I wish. I have always wanted to go into a state capital building and arrest a governor for violating our rights. *cough* Oregon

 

[zincwarrior]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that's the part people are glossing over.

Try harder.

 

[zincwarrior]

I was editing to add a remark on that but figured you were responding to it when the notification popped up.

Something I will have to think on and look further in to what constitutes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are on US property, or a US citizen, you are subject to US jurisdiction. That's bright line law from before England was a country.

 

[Younggun]

If any of you are on Facebook go to the Unbiased America page. There's a really good post about how the 14th Amendment was written to make citizens of freed slaves and their children. It wasn't meant to cover the children of foreign nationals and illegal immigrants born on US soil.

From what I can find on the subject, the scope of birthright citizenship was debated even in 1868 when it was passed.

Seems it could have easily been written to more specifically address it’s application. My opinion is that it is a poorly written amendment and leaves the door open far to wide. However, it is the amendment we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

If you are on US property, or a US citizen, you are subject to US jurisdiction. That's bright line law from before England was a country.

Except diplomats.


Keep Calm and RTFU

 

[zincwarrior]

Except diplomats.


Keep Calm and RTFU

Only by treaty, but good exemption.

 

[jrbfishn]

Unfortunately the wording of the 14th does not contain exemptions to deny citizenship to persons born here to parents not here legally. At best, poor wording and short sighted. At the time it was written, they did not have the problems that we have now.

SCOTUS has, IIRC, ruled before on the intent of the writers as well as the exact wording of the Constitution. Perhaps this is a way to get the matter before SCOTUS to make a ruling on the matter.
As worded, if I were a federal judge, Trump does not have the power to deny citizenship to anyone.
The wording needs to be changed. But there is a process for that. As much as I hate to say it, Trump does not get to interpret what the Constitution says, just enforce what it does say. Like it or not.
Reading into it what it does not say is one of the biggest problems we have with the left with the 2nd.
Stopping people at the border is one thing. Ignoring the Constitution as worded is another separate thing. Most of us would call that a dictator and traitor.

from an idjit coffeeholic

 

[Younggun]

Except diplomats.


Keep Calm and RTFU

My quick reading (on Wikipedia, for whatever it’s worth) is that the civil rights act of 1866 included that one must not be subject to a foreign power. IMO, that should have been included and would negate this debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

I agree.

from an idjit coffeeholic

 

[Low_Speed]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kingarthur777]

Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis are part of the United States Constitution. It is like saying your Great Grandmother immigrated from Germany. Guess what? Now, I can deport YOU to Germany. No President has the Authority or the Right to alter the United States Constitution. That is done by a 3/4's majority vote by the States. Think carefully, before you decide one man has power over the United States Constitution, even the Monarchs in England have the Magna Charta. This would be worse than having a monarch.

 

[easy rider]

Unfortunately the wording of the 14th does not contain exemptions to deny citizenship to persons born here to parents not here legally. At best, poor wording and short sighted. At the time it was written, they did not have the problems that we have now.

SCOTUS has, IIRC, ruled before on the intent of the writers as well as the exact wording of the Constitution. Perhaps this is a way to get the matter before SCOTUS to make a ruling on the matter.
As worded, if I were a federal judge, Trump does not have the power to deny citizenship to anyone.
The wording needs to be changed. But there is a process for that. As much as I hate to say it, Trump does not get to interpret what the Constitution says, just enforce what it does say. Like it or not.
Reading into it what it does not say is one of the biggest problems we have with the left with the 2nd.
Stopping people at the border is one thing. Ignoring the Constitution as worded is another separate thing. Most of us would call that a dictator and traitor.

from an idjit coffeeholic

I believe you are right, this will get shot down, but it does set precedence to send to SCOTUS for a ruling.

This won't go into effect for quite awhile, or at all. I agree with the implication of what he is doing, but I'm not a lawyer or judge so it's hard to say what will come of it. All I can say is I am most positive it will trigger the left.

 

[zincwarrior]

I believe you are right, this will get shot down, but it does set precedence to send to SCOTUS for a ruling.

This won't go into effect for quite awhile, or at all. I agree with the implication of what he is doing, but I'm not a lawyer or judge so it's hard to say what will come of it. All I can say is I am most positive it will trigger the left.

It should trigger ALL Americans.

 

[easy rider]

It should trigger ALL Americans.

How so? It will either be considered within the Constitution or it won't. You can't possibly believe the executive order won't be shot down.

 

[Kar98]

How so? It will either be considered within the Constitution or it won't. You can't possibly believe the executive order won't be shot down.

How so? By the sitting President squawking how he'll just change the Constitution by EO as if this was some sort of banana republic. This precedence can not be accepted.

Don't you think the Left have a whole laundry list of amendments they'd like to change by EO, should they ever control the government again?

 

[easy rider]

How so? By the sitting President squawking how he'll just change the Constitution by EO as if this was some sort of banana republic. This precedence can not be accepted.

Settle down, he can't change the Constitution. If the EO were to go through it would be considered within the Constitution.

 

[karlac]

Perhaps this is a way to get the matter before SCOTUS to make a ruling on the matter.

^ Bingo. My bet is that is exactly the goal of this threatened EO, and secondarily to make Congress act, which Graham seems bent on doing.

O ye of little faith.

Trump has damned good constitutional scholars to bounce this kind of thing off, before tweeting another 3D chess move to twist the panties of the left, just so they can eat their crap once more.

 

[zincwarrior]

How so? It will either be considered within the Constitution or it won't. You can't possibly believe the executive order won't be shot down.

A President would grandstand about unilaterally ignoring one of the bright line amendments of the Constitution is terrifying. We have the Second Amendment to stop government from doing what he is threatening to do . Further it makes him look like an absolute moron.

 

[Younggun]

I’m pretty sure Trump tweets first and has the lawyers check on it afterwards.


I am overwhelmingly in support of what Trump and accomplished, but I don’t think he waits for a lawyers approval before tweeting his next move. Probably why his tweets often reflect a somewhat different action than what we end up seeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

A President would grandstand about unilaterally ignoring one of the bright line amendments of the Constitution is terrifying. We have the Second Amendment to stop government from doing what he is threatening to do . Further it makes him look like an absolute moron.

No, we have a judicial branch to stop the president from ignoring constitutional amendments.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk