Quantcast
Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

I thought this topic was interesting.  So President Trump has been making the news as we head into the mid-terms by stating he has the executive power to remove Birthright Citizenship using his pen.  Birthright Citizenship is part of the 14th Amendment to the constitution.  For people who are not part of the US, in order to make a change to the Constitution, you have to have 2/3rds of the house and Senate approval of the proposal and then it has to be sent to the states for a vote.  75 present of the states would need to vote yes for the amendment to be ratified.  The other way for a constitution change is to have a constitutional convention and 2/3rds of the states has to be present.  From there 3/4ths of the states would have to agree for any amendments.

My question, what are people thoughts on this current move by President Trump.

Even if I support such a change to the constitution, I probably would definitely not support one person being able to make that change with a swipe of their pen.  I believe there is definitely a reason we have the rules in place for changes to the constitution and this leads to a slippery slop.

Personally, If Trump tried to go down this road, it would definitely get challenged and probably go all the way to the supreme court.  If that is the case then the push for Kav may have been the political move for Trump to make a stab at doing something no other President I can remember has attempted to do.

Also this may just be another one of Trump many grand stands as he look to throw some meat at his base.  I believe this can be very dangerous for Trump since a lot of conservatives really do not like the thought of changing the constitution from the Executive office and this could backfire.



Around the Network

Without due process, unilaterally repealing sections of the Constitution is supposedly a Republican/Conservative’s nightmare scenario. I hope no one goes Full Second Amendment on Beloved Leader for pondering it (seriously. I really hope not. Vague disclaimers are no one’s friend). Not since The Mad King George’s tea taxes has such an egregious display of tyranny wrought upon the former Land of the Free. I wonder how much of the Constitution he’d really like to tear up, or how much he’d prefer to remain, as he clearly wishes to be the sole authority over it.

Last edited by SuaveSocialist - on 30 October 2018

I'm not against outsider couples that are on US LEGALLY that happened to gave birth there, to give their children US citizenship if they want, but I am totally against doing it if you are ilegally in the country.



I'm more so concerned with the president trying to change an amendment with an executive order than I am with the actual results of the executive order.



Doesn't sound like it has a chance of succeeding.



Around the Network
CuCabeludo said:
I'm not against outsider couples that are on US LEGALLY that happened to gave birth there, to give their children US citizenship if they want, but I am totally against doing it if you are ilegally in the country.

But that's not really the issue here.  It's the notion that a president believes he can overwrite the Constitution regardless of the law he's changing.

 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
CuCabeludo said:
I'm not against outsider couples that are on US LEGALLY that happened to gave birth there, to give their children US citizenship if they want, but I am totally against doing it if you are ilegally in the country.

But that's not really the issue here.  It's the notion that a president believes he can overwrite the Constitution regardless of the law he's changing.

 

he doesn't actually, there is nothing in the constitution granting illegals instant citzenship.



It will be reverse when the cons lose power



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

SuaveSocialist said:

Without due process, unilaterally repealing sections of the Constitution is supposedly a Republican/Conservative’s nightmare scenario. I hope no one goes Full Second Amendment on Beloved Leader for pondering it (seriously. I really hope not. Vague disclaimers are no one’s friend). Not since The Mad King George’s tea taxes has such an egregious display of tyranny wrought upon the former Land of the Free. I wonder how much of the Constitution he’d really like to tear up, or how much he’d prefer to remain, as he clearly wishes to be the sole authority over it.

Had to look this up as I was partly convinced you were being sarcastic at points, but no, he was a mad king in the most literal sense. However, doesn't seem like he had much to do with the tea taxes. And I thought there was a thing in the US against witch-hunts.



Who needs the Constitution, right? Burn it all (except for the second amendment).