PDA

View Full Version : donald wants to change the Constitution...



skuthorp
02-14-2019, 02:28 PM
by executive order…...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/road-citizenship/no-mr-president-you-cant-change-constitution-executive-order

Who'd 'a thunk it?

ron ll
02-14-2019, 02:32 PM
The guy is still an absolute idiot.

Osborne Russell
02-14-2019, 02:34 PM
I thought Reds were against executive orders.

Keith Wilson
02-14-2019, 02:39 PM
'He's a f*cking moron!' - Secretary of State Ben Tillerson.


Birthright citizenship is one of the bedrocks of this country. More than 150 years ago, the 14th Amendment guaranteed to all those born within the United States citizenship, without regard to parentage, skin color, or ethnicity. And the Supreme Court ruled, more than 100 years ago, that the citizenship guarantee applies fully to U.S.-born children whose parents have no right to citizenship.

Before the amendment was enacted, American citizenship was controlled by the abhorrent 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford. In that case, the justices found that Black people born in the United States were not citizens, but rather a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” with “no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.” Neither slaves, nor freed slaves, nor their descendants could ever become citizens, the justices ruled.

After the Civil War, Congress overruled Dred Scott by passing the 14th Amendment. The definition of citizenship is part of its very first sentence: “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.” In one sweep, the clause guaranteed citizenship to previously enslaved people and their children — and ensured that the law would never again perpetuate a multigenerational, permanent underclass of individuals barred from American citizenship.

In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, no matter what their parents’ status. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the justices found that a baby born in San Francisco to parents who were citizens of China — and subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited them from becoming U.S. citizens themselves — was automatically a citizen at birth. The court specifically rejected the argument that a child in those circumstances was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus excluded from the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee.

Only a few categories of people are excluded: children of foreign diplomats, children of enemy soldiers present in the U.S. during an occupation, and children of Native American tribes, who have American citizenship under a separate provision of law.

At least since 1898, there has been no serious question about whether children born in the United States can be denied American citizenship because of the status of their parents. James C. Ho, who was recently appointed by President Trump to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, has written that citizenship “is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.” Similarly, Walter Dellinger, who was assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration, told Congress in 1995 that legislation to nullify birthright citizenship was “unquestionably unconstitutional.”

RonW
02-14-2019, 02:59 PM
Good, let the debate begin. The argument is over illegals stepping across the border and dropping a baby and then declaring the baby is a U.S. citizen.

This goes back to the 14th amendment and the sentence that gives rise to the problem is .

--1: 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.---

The parts being ignored are subject to jurisdiction of - and the state wherein they reside.

The 14th does not grant citizenship to..---was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country,

because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts of their host country.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/the-citizenship-clause-by-akhil-amar-and-john-harrison/clause/56

http://constitutionus.com/

Which leads to he argument of if you are not a resident of a state and are here illegally, you are not entitled to birthright citizenship as the parents are citizens of another country.

Keith Wilson
02-14-2019, 03:02 PM
Sorry, that exact issue was decided in 1898 by United States v. Wong Kim Ark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark); settled law for 122 years. Not a prayer.

Gerarddm
02-14-2019, 03:04 PM
Whatever regressives may say about whether birthright citizenship is a good thing ( it is ), no president can nullify parts of the Consitution by executive fiat. Let him try it, it is another impeachable offense.

RonW
02-14-2019, 03:07 PM
Sorry, that exact issue was decided in 1898 by United States v. Wong Kim Ark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark); settled law for 122 years. Not a prayer.

Which says -
but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",

I bet this is going to be pushed and end up in the supreme court, which will rehash the whole issue of the meaning of citizenship, and illegality of immigrants.

Good luck Donald..

BrianY
02-14-2019, 03:08 PM
I can just picture him sitting at a desk with a paper copy of the Constitution in front of him, a crayon clutched in his pudgy fist, his eyes screwed up in concentration and his tongue sticking out of the side of his mouth as he crosses stuff out and scrawls his "improvements" over the text. The mental exertion must be very taxing.

Chris Smith porter maine
02-14-2019, 03:10 PM
He has to do something to whip up the base, his push for a wall even with a republican house and Senate failed. So basically all Trump has done is give cooperations and the Uber rich a huge tax cut, oh yeah and golf a lot.

RonW
02-14-2019, 03:13 PM
He has to do something to whip up the base, his push for a wall even with a republican house and Senate failed. So basically all Trump has done is give cooperations and the Uber rich a huge tax cut, oh yeah and golf a lot.

Then there really shouldn't be anything to complain about .

Tom Montgomery
02-14-2019, 03:13 PM
He has to do something to whip up the base...
And RonW rises to the bait.

RonW
02-14-2019, 03:19 PM
And RonW rises to the bait.

Not at all, but if you was informed, then you would know that the argument about birthright being granted to illegal aliens goes back at least 50 years or more.

It just has escalated to the point it has to be taken care of.

RonW
02-14-2019, 03:20 PM
And RonW rises to the bait.

Not at all, but if you was informed, then you would know that the argument about birthright being granted to illegal aliens goes back at least 50 years or more.

It just has escalated to the point it has to be taken care of.

leikec
02-14-2019, 03:29 PM
Not at all, but if you was informed, then you would know that the argument about birthright being granted to illegal aliens goes back at least 50 years or more.

It just has escalated to the point it has to be taken care of.

Easy there, fella. I know you're waiting for my picture, but control your excitement and just post things once--it's more of you than we need already.

Jeff C

Art Haberland
02-14-2019, 06:16 PM
Not at all, but if you was informed, then you would know that the argument about birthright being granted to illegal aliens goes back at least 50 years or more.

It just has escalated to the point it has to be taken care of.

It's been taken care of since 1889. The argument is moot.

TomF
02-14-2019, 06:27 PM
Just when you think there can't really be another xenophobic piece of flaming turd out there, the orange SOB finds one.

He is horrifying enough; I really worry about his increasingly maliciously gleeful followers.

Sky Blue
02-14-2019, 06:36 PM
Be undaunted President Trump; keep your promises and bring all necessary pressure to bear on the scumbags.

You're doing beautifully. Thank you.

TomF
02-14-2019, 06:47 PM
And right on cue! :D

RonW
02-14-2019, 07:10 PM
It's been taken care of since 1889. The argument is moot.

Wrong, scotus can overturn any and all previous decisions from scotus, and the legislature can legislate. But not till 2020 when Pelosi and the dems are replaced.

Chris Smith porter maine
02-14-2019, 07:13 PM
Wrong, scotus can overturn any and all previous decisions from scotus, and the legislature can legislate. But not till 2020 when Pelosi and the dems are replaced.

Right after 3/4 of the states sigh on.

oznabrag
02-14-2019, 07:31 PM
Wrong, scotus can overturn any and all previous decisions from scotus, and the legislature can legislate. But not till 2020 when Pelosi and the dems are replaced.

Yeah, once TrumPence are jailed and replaced, there will of course be a new Speaker.

Art Haberland
02-14-2019, 07:49 PM
Wrong, scotus can overturn any and all previous decisions from scotus, and the legislature can legislate. But not till 2020 when Pelosi and the dems are replaced.

SCOTUS can also decline to hear any and everything, leaving previous standings intact. As Chris also points out, amending the Constitution not only takes 3/4s of both the House and Senate, but 3/4s of the states to also ratify it. While you may get the Midwest and South, you are not going to get the West Coast and Northeast to join in..

Amending the Constitution also opens up a big can of worms, as once a constitutional convention I convened, anything can get tabled for consideration as the convention has the "power to propose anything it sees fit"

gypsie
02-14-2019, 07:50 PM
Good, let the debate begin. The argument is over illegals stepping across the border and dropping a baby and then declaring the baby is a U.S. citizen.

That happens everywhere. Only a white winger would think its a good idea to undermine all of your citizens rights because a tiny, immaterial, few people take advantage of it.

There is a concept in the philosophy of law that one must live with some unlawful activity. You simply got to put up with the fact that some people will do things you don't want them to do.
The reason is, to stamp out that minority of activity would mean impositions on the 'normal' life of all other citizens, that would be so great as to make their lives unlivable. The Stazi tried it, they had 25% of the citizenry working for them. Life was orderly, but it was hell.

gypsie
02-14-2019, 07:55 PM
And just a quick follow up.

Have any of the trump supporters on this thread considered what it means if the president can decide if you a citizen or not?
What happens when a president decides you are not a citizen? Do you say 'Fair cop guvnor'.

Art Haberland
02-14-2019, 07:59 PM
And just a quick follow up.

Have any of the trump supporters on this thread considered what it means if the president can decide if you a citizen or not?
What happens when a president decides you are not a citizen? Do you say 'Fair cop guvnor'.

good question. I was born to American Citizens, but on foreign soil. Could a simple swipe of the pen render me stateless?

Ian McColgin
02-14-2019, 08:35 PM
Note the dateline: OCTOBER 30, 2018

This stupid idea is not on the table and bringing it forward as if it were current is deceptive in a manner similar to the way the right wing does their bit. We should be about truth.

webishop14
02-14-2019, 09:13 PM
Note the dateline: OCTOBER 30, 2018

This stupid idea is not on the table and bringing it forward as if it were current is deceptive in a manner similar to the way the right wing does their bit. We should be about truth.

Beat me to the post. Old news.

mdh
02-14-2019, 09:29 PM
Not old news:

Federal agents charge 19 for birth tourism in Southern California, say practice poses national threat


“After allegedly helping thousands of pregnant Chinese women come to Southern California to give birth to American citizen children, three operators of so-called birth tourism agencies were arrested Thursday, the first criminal charges ever lodged against the controversial industry.”

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/01/31/20-charged-in-birth-tourism-scheme-that-helped-chinese-mothers-have-babies-in-southern-california/

Ian McColgin
02-15-2019, 06:19 AM
Charged because they were not Russian oligarch women in Trump's Manhatten . . . luxury lying-in for citizenship hotel.

This is different. The birth-tourism industry is a criminal enterprise.

It will be interesting to see if any action is taken to attack the US citizenship of any of the children who were not in any way agents in the crime. It could be argued both ways with withering secondary consequences no matter how decided. A tough one for people of thought. Utterly beyond the feckless.

Tom Montgomery
02-15-2019, 07:00 AM
I thought Reds were against executive orders.
Reds are only against executive orders issued by Democratic presidents. They are fine with whatever a red president may do.