Trump to enforce 14th Amendment

[Kar98]

Kar98,

You wake up on the wrong side of the bed..every morning, doncha?

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

zincwarrior,

Most excellent.

Keep up the good work counselor.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Kar98,

Thanks for the belly laugh!

Bender is my kinda robot!!

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

All right, the rest of you sidewalk lawyers get back to the pontification mines, there's work to be done..windmills to tilt at..

 

[easy rider]

All right, the rest of you sidewalk lawyers get back to the pontification mines, there's work to be done..windmills to tilt at..

You do know it doesn't take a law degree to read?

 

[karlac]

How many of you are Constitutional lawyers?

My guess: Zero, but don't let that fact stop the interminable pontificating.

My addition to the word soup, I'm against illegal aliens hatching babies on U.S. soil for the unearned benefits.

Can't speak to what happened after 1961, but prior to that the Constitution, and its Amendments, were studied in public schools, in a manner that would likely pass as qualification for being a "Constitutional lawyer" today ... when most can't spell "amendment" without a spell checker.

 

[HKShooter65]

It boils down to Trump is trying to force the SC to clarify the 14th where it is blatantly vague.

Exact words:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Show me the vague part.

For trump to try to change the constitution single handedly would be a grotesque abuse of power. Way way over the line of abusiveness.

I don't disagree with what he wants to accomplish.
I violently disagree with his thinking that he, as president, has that power.

His taking it to SCOTUS....OK.
Executive order, as the OP link stated....no way.

 

[diesel1959]

That doesn't make any sense. With your view, the Legislative Bicameral system is eliminated, and only the President For Life and the SCOTUS are needed. Do you miss King Obama that much? Where he legislated from the Executive (illegally), because Congress wouldn't do what he wanted?

The legislative branch has already spoken when it passed the 14A, and the States ratified. The Supreme Court partially explained and decided the meaning in Wong Kim Ark; however, there is more for them to decide. When a law exists and needs to be executed, there are fine points in HOW it is to be executed. By making a choice in HOW it is to be executed, Trump wouldn't be changing the law, he would be changing executive policy in how already-existing law is to be understood and executed. If there are lawsuits that flow from that change, then the Supreme Court (eventually) will get the chance to describe whether or why the executive action comports or not with what the 14A means. That's precisely how our system works.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

E.R.,

O.K. then, I'll argue a bit too.

Being able to read doesn't mean the reader understands what's being read by him/her now does it?

My arguing license is about to expire, so I'll mosey..

All this lawyering stuff is making me hungry too and I'm overdue for gullet stuffing.

 

[diesel1959]

If he can get tid of the 14th Amendment unilaterally, he can get rid of Article 2 unilaterally.

He can't "get rid of the 14th Amendment unilaterally", so quit with the hyperbole. What he CAN do, is precisely hone in on a definition of something that has been left unexplained/undecided since 1898 . . . and that is: What would have been the result had Wong Kim Ark's parents been illegal immigrants rather than legally resident aliens when they had their son? It seems you believe the the Court would have decided in the same manner. I happen to believe the decision and judgment would have been quite different in those changed facts. And that's the rub, counselor--it's a question that has NEVER been decided and will be ripe for courts once Trump executes on his order--IF he does.

 

[Renegade]

Exact words:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Show me the vague part.

All one has to do is show that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Precedent for this already exists.

The reality is, Trump knows his EO will not fly. Like so many other things, this is how he starts the ball rolling towards his end goal. He already has Graham on-board to introduce legislation to change it. He literally WANTS courts to shoot down his EO to create support for legislation/amendment. Anyone who does not see this strategy has not been paying attention, as he repeatedly does it.

 

[karlac]

Exact words:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Show me the vague part.

You bracketed it.

Underlined above ... is what seems to be the overriding basis for debate, not just here and today, but in many historical court cases.

One thing is for damned sure ... it ain't gonna be settled in a TGT thread.

 

[Kar98]

Diesel, had Wong Kim Ark's parents been illegal immigrants, he still would been "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Case in point:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Who_must_register

 

[zincwarrior]

Kar98,

Thanks for the belly laugh!

Bender is my kinda robot!!

Bender is the oracle of truth. I

 

[diesel1959]

Diesel, had Wong Kim Ark's parents been illegal immigrants, he still would been "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Case in point:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Who_must_register

I disagree. That shows but one portion of "being subject to" jurisdiction. You haven't dealt with my earlier comment in this thread that shows that illegal immigrants arrested in the US have the right to speak with the Consular authorities of their home nation. That is NOT the right of anyone who is here legally. That's a HUGE difference. Illegal aliens can be drafted by the armed forces of their home nation and be subject to imprisonment for disregarding same. So they are STILL subject completely to the jurisdiction of their home nation and NOT completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[zincwarrior]

You bracketed it.

Underlined above ... is what seems to be the overriding basis for debate, not just here and today, but in many historical court cases.

One thing is for damned sure ... it ain't gonna be settled in a TGT thread.

It's been defined for decades actually.

 

[Kar98]

I disagree. That shows but one portion of "being subject to" jurisdiction. You haven't dealt with my earlier comment in this thread that shows that illegal immigrants arrested in the US have the right to speak with the Consular authorities of their home nation. That is NOT the right of anyone who is here legally. That's a HUGE difference. Illegal aliens can be drafted by the armed forces of their home nation and be subject to imprisonment for disregarding same. So they are STILL subject completely to the jurisdiction of their home nation and NOT completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Legal immigrants ALSO have the right to speak to their consulate, but they're still subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[karlac]

It's been defined for decades actually.

And still being interpreted and debated ...

 

[diesel1959]

Legal immigrants ALSO have the right to speak to their consulate, but they're still subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

They are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US under the meaning of that clause back in the the day that the 14A was passed. The fact that for a score of decades we've permitted the Supreme Court to leave unanswered an entirely different fact pattern than that presented in Wong Kim Ark, doesn't mean that is not a proper legal question to bring up now.

 

[diesel1959]

It's been partially defined for decades actually.

Fixed it for you.