Law Trump may sign E.O. ending birthright citizenship

[funcrusher2007]

You realize they have opposite goals, right? Which democrat would vote to remove birthright citizenship, and which republican would vote to give illegals citizenship? The compromise was 20 years ago when democrats agreed that illegal immigration should not be incentivized.

Ok let me explain like a two year old. Republicans wouldn’t get full birthright citizenship revoked (couldn’t anyway) and dems wouldn’t get full amnesty...
Holy shit... what’s left? Compromise gasp!

 

[MicroBrew]

If he keeps it up for too long and doesn't concede, then Trump could be looking forward to charges of treason and sedition.

He went on and on about locking Hillary up, which energized GOP grass roots crowds , but at the end of the day he never delivered on it. Same with the Wall and getting Mexico to pay for it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If he keeps it up for too long and doesn't concede, then Trump could be looking forward to charges of treason and sedition.

Not treason. But I don't see trying to get rid of democracy and ignore the Constitution as putting America first, either. That seems like wiping your ass with America.

 

[The Diplomat]

Not treason. But I don't see trying to get rid of democracy and ignore the Constitution as putting America first, either. That seems like wiping your ass with America.

Aye, under US law they separate "Attempting to overthrow the US government" and "Rebellion/insurrection" from treason, which is solely based on engaging war with the US or aiding its enemies. Could be more more charges in that case, minus the treason.

 

[BForrester]

The SC is tasked with making sure laws adhere to the constitution, full stop. They have zero power to change the constitution itself.

It all depends on how this SC interprets the 14th. They could perform some mental jiu jitsu in their interpretation. I doubt it, but shit is flimsy right now.

 

[nostradumbass]

Ok let me explain like a two year old. Republicans wouldn’t get full birthright citizenship revoked (couldn’t anyway) and dems wouldn’t get full amnesty...
Holy shit... what’s left? Compromise gasp!

You're right, you do sound like a 2 year old. By all means, give an example of the "compromise" that you could see realistically happening. The compromise is what we already have, and the 2 sides want to go in opposite directions.

 

[Limbo Pete]

It all depends on how this SC interprets the 14th. They could perform some mental jiu jitsu in their interpretation. I doubt it, but shit is flimsy right now.

There's no ambiguity there. Furthermore, they'd need some kind of valid legal challenge... which doesn't exist. Executive orders are meaningless here.

 

[Lubaolong]

This is in the text:

There isn't the slightest bit of ambiguity there. What "scholars" think that that doesn't mean that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens?

I've heard many people say the original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance to a foreign government and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that person, so this wouldn't apply to illegal immigrants.

It doesn't mean this is how the majority of scholars think, but when it has been argued before, it seems this segment is the part they usually focus on.

 

[The XL]

He can't undo the 14th Amendment with an executive order lol

The left thinks they can undo the 1st Amendment with an executive order, what's the difference?

 

[The Diplomat]

It all depends on how this SC interprets the 14th. They could perform some mental jiu jitsu in their interpretation. I doubt it, but shit is flimsy right now.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the states request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each state for ratification.
The Constitution | The White House

It's all dealt through the legislative branch. The judicial branch has no say, whatsoever.

 

[BFoe]

It all depends on how this SC interprets the 14th. They could perform some mental jiu jitsu in their interpretation. I doubt it, but shit is flimsy right now.

There's no ambiguity there. Furthermore, they'd need some kind of valid legal challenge... which doesn't exist. Executive orders are meaningless here.

This was already heard by the SCOTUS—way back in 1898. They interpreted it just as the plain text states.
https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supreme-court-case-confirmed-birthright-citizenship/

 

[drstrangelov]

It's probably fair to say that at least some scholars, including some in the White House Counsel, agree with Trump. It seems that it would inevitably be challenged in court, which seems like it might not go in Trump's favor, but I know there is a lot of support behind this idea. The US is one of only a couple non-shithole countries that grant automatic birthright citizenship.

There are definitely many lawyers and scholars who don’t believe birthright citizenship should be the law. Among constitutional law experts, that opinion wouldn’t be supported by strict textualists or by review of intent of the law as written. If the court ever ruled on this, it would be a weird coalition of justices coming together, since it’s not a traditional liberal/conservative issue.

Beyond that, I don’t know if the EO would lead to a case that could realistically change the current law. The case would be around whether the federal agencies have an obligation to file certain paperwork under the law. It could be upheld or thrown out without statement on birthright citizenship as law, since the president can’t actually make any laws.

It’s all meaningless though, since Biden can end any Trump executive order with a stroke of a pen, and any legal challenges in progress would be closed as a result.

 

[Limbo Pete]

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the states request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each state for ratification.
The Constitution | The White House

It's all dealt through the legislative branch. The judicial branch has no say, whatsoever.

This, this, THIS
The issue here is extremely straight forward. The separation of powers leaves absolutely no role for the SC in overturning a Constitutional Amendment. Period.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Basic fucking civics, people

 

[The XL]

Trump wants to violate the 14th Amendment with an executive order: literally Hitler. The left violating the first Amendment continually for 8 months with executive orders: A-Ok

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Yes we should get rid of it.
No, he should not be able to do it by executive order.

 

[MeatheadMike]

He should retroactively end birthright citizenship for everyone in the country so that only the real Americans will be allowed:

 

[Jack V Savage]

The left thinks they can undo the 1st Amendment with an executive order, what's the difference?

The difference is that you're making up a crazy claim, while the OP is real.

Trump wants to violate the 14th Amendment with an executive order: literally Hitler. The left violating the first Amendment continually for 8 months with executive orders: A-Ok

WTF? What do you understand "executive order" to mean?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've heard many people say the original meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance to a foreign government and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that person, so this wouldn't apply to illegal immigrants.

It doesn't mean this is how the majority of scholars think, but when it has been argued before, it seems this segment is the part they usually focus on.

Again, this is ridiculous. The exception applied to some Native Americans and diplomats. There's no serious argument against that.

 

[The XL]

The difference is that you're making up a crazy claim, while the OP is real.



WTF? What do you understand "executive order" to mean?

Interesting. Leftist politicians across the country aren't using executive orders to prevent people from peaceful assembly?