By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

CosmicSex on 31 October 2018

Does anyone really want to give the President unilateral authority to amend the constitution via executive order?



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 31 October 2018
LiquorandGunFun said:
Machiavellian said:

What are the examples where the left or even the Dems has looked for the executive office to make changes with an executive order.  It's one thing to want change, its another to allow the president to change it without due process from the other branches and the states.

obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed.

as far as king barack, since you brought it up.

  • A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional.
  • A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.”
  • National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts.
  • His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution.
  • His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith.
  • The Iran deal.
  • Obama’s amnesty plan.
  • His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.”
  • His recess appointments.
  • His refusal to deport illegal aliens.
  • His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control
  • His mandate over private health care records.
  • His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women.
  • His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding.
  • That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws.
  • That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans.
  • That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods.
  • That he can decide who faces prosecution.
  • That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”
  • That he can dictate speech codes
  • That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies.

    • Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/#lVcco8XK37pVovec.99
    there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit.

    This has nothing to do with balls but instead him wanting to throw some meat to his base.  If he had the balls to bring this up then he would have the balls to go through the proper channels and get Congress to bring it to a vote.  Trump working within the system and the powers of his office, negotiating and getting things done is what takes balls.  

    As for you doing homework for me, lol.  I have read plenty of pros and cons for what the president can do.  All of it is theory when it comes to the constitution.  Throwing Obama name into the hate means nothing to me since I didn't even vote for him.  Every time someone has an issue with the policies Trump want to do it seems people like you want to throw Hillary or Obama into the hat as if that absolves what the current administration is doing.  Out of all those links, the GOP kept praising how this is a constitution win like Obamacare funding.  If that is the case why would they want another example of the President overreach.  

    As I stated in my original post, yes this will probably go to the SC but my personal opinion is that it still needs proper due process.



    melbye on 31 October 2018
    Hiku said:
    melbye said:
    Birthright citizenship is dumb, you should not be able to claim citizenship in a country you have no real connection to. But i don't think one person should be allowed to make an unilateral decision to change the constitution of a country.

    Being born and raised (as they likely will be) in a country = no real connection to it?
    Then what is a real connection to it?

    At the moment of birth when parents are not citizens and just visiting or illegal means you have no real connection to that country



    Snoopy on 31 October 2018
    Locknuts said:

    Lol I don't think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the children of those who come in illegally. Also, I don't think Trump can change the constitution with a swipe of his pen. 

    Just like abortion, it was never really supported or unsupported by the constitution. It was just interpreted that way. The Supreme court could essentially vote on their interpretation of the 14th amendment and make it where if your parents are here illegally and have a baby it won't become u.s. citizen automatically.

    This has proven to be a strain on the U.S. economy and the middle class, but Democrats don't care as long as they get more votes.



    melbye on 31 October 2018
    Hiku said:
    melbye said:

    At the moment of birth when parents are not citizens and just visiting or illegal means you have no real connection to that country

    I'm not talking about the parents. If offspring's citizenship is dependent on their parents, then none of the children born from the people who came to colonize America and murdered the original inhabitants would be valid.
    And that's not answering the question.
    If being being born and raised in a country is not 'a real connection to it' then what is?

    Maybe it's because i am still not feeling well, but i really don't understand what you are trying to say



    Around the Network
    CosmicSex on 31 October 2018
    the-pi-guy said:
    CuCabeludo said:

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

    The 14th amendment says all person born in the US is a citizen.  Unless you are claiming that illegals aren't people.  

    The whole concept of illegal citizens would be foreign to the founding fathers.

    There are no such thing as illegal citizens.  You are correct to simple say that people born here regardless of legal status citizens per plain text understanding of the English language.  It is quite hard to convincingly make it mean anything else.  If they only meant freed slaves they would have said that.  Therefore they meant what they said and nothing more or less. However the biggest benefactor of this law are the enormous number of immigrants that came to america from countries in Europe and whose children were auto citizens.  Legal status can not be taken as an interpretation because the amendment does not specify.  Case closed.



    anthony64641 on 31 October 2018

    I regret not voting last term (even if both candidates sucked tbh). America is becoming the laughing stock of the world more and more everyday. It will takes years to repair the damage Trump has done to the US name




    'Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about rock-n-roll.'
    -Shigeru Miyamoto

    Zucas on 31 October 2018
    Machiavellian said:
    LiquorandGunFun said:

    obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed.

    as far as king barack, since you brought it up.

  • A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional.
  • A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.”
  • National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts.
  • His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution.
  • His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith.
  • The Iran deal.
  • Obama’s amnesty plan.
  • His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.”
  • His recess appointments.
  • His refusal to deport illegal aliens.
  • His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control
  • His mandate over private health care records.
  • His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women.
  • His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding.
  • That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws.
  • That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans.
  • That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods.
  • That he can decide who faces prosecution.
  • That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”
  • That he can dictate speech codes
  • That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies.

    • Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/#lVcco8XK37pVovec.99
    there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit.

    This has nothing to do with balls but instead him wanting to throw some meat to his base.  If he had the balls to bring this up then he would have the balls to go through the proper channels and get Congress to bring it to a vote.  Trump working within the system and the powers of his office, negotiating and getting things done is what takes balls.  

    As for you doing homework for me, lol.  I have read plenty of pros and cons for what the president can do.  All of it is theory when it comes to the constitution.  Throwing Obama name into the hate means nothing to me since I didn't even vote for him.  Every time someone has an issue with the policies Trump want to do it seems people like you want to throw Hillary or Obama into the hat as if that absolves what the current administration is doing.  Out of all those links, the GOP kept praising how this is a constitution win like Obamacare funding.  If that is the case why would they want another example of the President overreach.  

    As I stated in my original post, yes this will probably go to the SC but my personal opinion is that it still needs proper due process.

    Oh you don't need to comment on anything in those posts. Nothing in there is legally sufficient or shows any understanding of how the courts interpret the Constitution. Neither the poster or the writer of those articles should be doing any homework for anyone about these issues. 

    As a note, this is not really about due process. Just that the type of issue that would be brought up has relatively little legal history. It's quite possible the SC wouldn't even take the case because of past court precedent. There isn't much legal scholarship suggesting that the 14th Amendment doesn't encapsulate birthright citizenship. The argument the court would possibly take on is whether or not "subject to the jurisdiction of" covers those that enter illegally. I don't think that argument has too much weight though because no one would suggest that if someone illegally entered and committed a crime, that the US wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute. TBH that statement was mainly meant to say that foreign diplomats and indigenous tribes were not covered by this. While being within the physical jurisdiction of the US, they were subject to other powers. 



    Kristof81 on 31 October 2018
    melbye said:
    Birthright citizenship is dumb, you should not be able to claim citizenship in a country you have no real connection to. But i don't think one person should be allowed to make an unilateral decision to change the constitution of a country.

    You do realize that we're talking about newborn babies, right? So what kind of connection with a country does the newborn have? 



    Machiavellian on 31 October 2018
    Zucas said:

    Oh you don't need to comment on anything in those posts. Nothing in there is legally sufficient or shows any understanding of how the courts interpret the Constitution. Neither the poster or the writer of those articles should be doing any homework for anyone about these issues. 

    As a note, this is not really about due process. Just that the type of issue that would be brought up has relatively little legal history. It's quite possible the SC wouldn't even take the case because of past court precedent. There isn't much legal scholarship suggesting that the 14th Amendment doesn't encapsulate birthright citizenship. The argument the court would possibly take on is whether or not "subject to the jurisdiction of" covers those that enter illegally. I don't think that argument has too much weight though because no one would suggest that if someone illegally entered and committed a crime, that the US wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute. TBH that statement was mainly meant to say that foreign diplomats and indigenous tribes were not covered by this. While being within the physical jurisdiction of the US, they were subject to other powers. 

    This link paints a pretty good picture of what you are talking about and I believe if Trump wants to go down this route, if anything the case would be if he actually have the authority to even do this based on an EO.

    https://niskanencenter.org/blog/birthright-citizenship-is-not-a-legal-assumption-its-the-law/

    When all is said and done, if people really want to change how this amendment is worded or restrict its meaning, it sill needs to go through congress and ratified by the states.