I don't believe he woke up thinking "I think I will change the Constitution". I'm sure he has talked to others on the legality of this. I, myself, am not so sure it's against the 14th amendment.
Trump to enforce 14th Amendment
- Thread starter TheMailMan
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Tweeting and actually doing is a bit different, but I would never call him stupid. Acting on something that isn't really within his power would be stupid.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
He may have talked to soseone. Next time he should talk to at least a semi competent first year law student.
Do you watch a lot of CNN? You sound a lot like them.
My belief, and backed up by little verifiable evidence, it that Trump will tweet about things he wants done, he will then have his lawyers go over all the legalities and possible approaches to accomplish what he wants done, and he chooses the plan which he believes will best accomplish the goal.
When he was running and people were clamoring about how he didn’t know enough my assumption was always that he would surround himself with the right people to get the job done, and it seems as though he has. In this case I think his lawyers will draft an EO that will get him as close as possible to his goal of reforming birthright citizenship.
Whatever it ends up being, it will definitely end up in the courts. Even if it is clearly within the bounds of the constitution. Just as the ban on travel from 7 countries known to be terrorist hotspots containing only a minority of the world wide Muslim population went through the courts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just did a little looking around (3 minutes with google) and it seems like this has been simmering for more than a couple days. In fact, it seems like his lawyers have been digging and working on legal and constitutional avenues for Trump to accomplish his campaign promise of ending chain migration and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and those on work visas.
https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
What the final product will be won’t be known until we are shown. I feel like I’ve been drawn in to the narrative.
Damn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did, just wondering if CNN was his info source.
That does sound like his MO. I was going to say that much of the talking points sounds about like his travel ban.
The way it "would work" is that Trump signs the EO, which immediately spurs the filing of lawsuits. Those lawsuits would force the issue (eventually) up to the Supreme Court which could FINALLY make a decision upon what this part of the 14A means--especially seeing as how the Wong Kim Ark case left this question wide open.
The EO is absolutely not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The end game is to get a strong originalist Court to decide for once and for all just what the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause means. If the Court decides and the Congress and/or the People don't like what has been decided, then either of those groups can proceed with either of the two ways provided for amendments to the Constitution.
Last edited:
Just because you happen to agree with Wong Kim Ark and the 120-years of broad interpretation of the 14A, doesn't mean that the law can't sharpen what that decision actually meant. Wong Kim Ark was the child of LEGALLY-DOMICILED RESIDENTS here in the US and NOT the child of illegal aliens. This is NOT a small or subtle difference. It makes a difference that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their own nation of birth and NOT the jurisdiction of the US.
An EO is a tool to stimulate the legal system to shît or get off the pot on this very sharp legal point.
Not true in all senses. The fact that an illegal immigrant in the US who is arrested has the right to seek assistance from the Consul General of his own home nation is distinctly different than what a US citizen can do under the same circumstances. Further, illegal aliens are already subject to the jurisdiction of their own home nation. They are only partly subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Last edited:
The President issuing an EO doesn't alter or rewrite the constitution. It merely finely hones the manner in which that law is interpreted and executed. That is PRECISELY what the executive is meant to do. Again, the EO can be a tool to prompt a Congress and/or the Courts to get busy.
Bullshit. It should trigger lawsuits, which result in decisions that allow the People to know what the letter of the law means. And THEN, if the People aren't happy with the letter of the law, then they can use the two approved methods of amending the Constitution.
Imprecise language is the devil in these types of discussions. Nothing Trump could write would "alter" or "rewrite" the Constitution. It can change how what's written is interpreted and executed.
Remember how "bright line" the 2A thinking was before Heller and McDonald? The Supreme Court hadn't seriously attended to the individual vs the collective nature of the 2A until those cases. The same is true with regard to the difference between legal vs illegal immigrants who have children here since what--1898-- in Wong Kim Ark.
An EO against the 14th??
For those of us that think the 14th is not as important as the 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment you are walking a slippery slope. There will be a time where a sitting president will be a DEM again, and the precedent set here may put our 2nd in jeopardy in the future.
For those of us that think the 14th is not as important as the 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment you are walking a slippery slope. There will be a time where a sitting president will be a DEM again, and the precedent set here may put our 2nd in jeopardy in the future.
And you think that Trump's actions had precipitated this? If the democratic/socialists gain power the whole Constitution is at stake.
Kingarthur777
Active Member
Just because you like someone, doesn't give them the right to write an EO to abrogate the Constitution. What, it is bad when Obama does it, and wonderful when Trump does it? I could give a damn who does it. It seems like how the Checks and Balances work in Social Studies was not part of the studies for Obama, Trump, or you. Being President is an Executive position. We fought a whole war, as you might remember so we wouldn't have a King. What is next? Clinton gets to run again, even though there is a two term limit? Then I guess he could make an Executive order that all women show him their breasts on command?
Link is wordy and I might have missed it, but instead of listing the countries that DO have birthright citizenship, arguably more telling is a list of countries that do NOT allow it:
Australia Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany
Greece Hong Kong Iceland India Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Liechtenstein
Luxembourg Malta Monaco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Saudi Arabia
Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan United Kingdom
Notable is that most, if not all European countries, whom the left wants to badly emulate and likes to hold up as morally superior and more advanced than the US, do NOT allow birthright citizenship.
Highlighting one of the reasons I voted for Trump ... the left is in favor of the concept. Or, as old Ralph Waldo Emerson once famously stated:
"Such foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of small minds".
There is a huge misunderstanding about how amendments come to be understood.
This "understanding" happens through cases and controversies that come before the Supreme Court, who then gets to say what the Constitution and Amendments mean. There are many ways for this issue to come before SCOTUS. One would be for Congress to pass a law and then someone files suit under some grievance under that law. Another way is for an executive order to be put forth that then causes some grievance that likewise causes a case to be filed, etc.
The view that the EO changes the constitution is completely bogus.
