Politics TRUMP SAYS HE PLANS TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TERMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, Oct 30, 2018.

Moderators: 7

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
  7. Strenuus
Page 10 of 13
  1. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    92,849
    Likes Received:
    55,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I’m not going to read through all these posts, but I want to say that I don’t care which one it is, the president cannot unilaterally remove a constitutional amendment. It’s a slippery slope that could be used against any amendment including freedom of speech, gun rights and freedom of religion. This is the kind of dictatorial move that could lead to civil war.
     
    Natebishop3, Nov 1, 2018
    #181
    theprunetang likes this.
  2. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Since the idea isn't to remove an amendment it isn't anything like that.

    Reading more about it (could be all bullshit) this is what the intent was in the first place. The court is where this will end. Not Trump's pen as a dictator.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1, Nov 1, 2018
    #182
  3. julius

    julius I wonder if there's beer on the sun Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    44,455
    Likes Received:
    32,775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Vagabond
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta Ca
    It's being talked about/threatened for the same reason he mentions the "caravan". It's to scare old white people into voting republican. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
    julius, Nov 1, 2018
    #183
    Natebishop3, oldmangrouch and Chris Craig like this.
  4. oldmangrouch

    oldmangrouch persona non grata

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    12,403
    Likes Received:
    6,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oldmangrouch, Nov 1, 2018
    #184
  5. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    bodyman5000 and 1, Nov 1, 2018
    #185
  6. Stevenson

    Stevenson Old School

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    5,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    PDX
    Did you not take civics in high school?

    If you don't like birth citizenship, change the Constitution.

    Good luck with that.
     
    Stevenson, Nov 1, 2018
    #186
    stampedehero and CupWizier like this.
  7. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not first just challenge that particular interpretation of the Constitution? Wouldn't that be easier?
     
    PtldPlatypus, Nov 1, 2018
    #187
    Natebishop3 and bodyman5000 and 1 like this.
  8. CupWizier

    CupWizier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired
    Problem with that is it just opens a can of worms and with a president like trump I can see abuse of power. Would you allow the two SCOTUS's appointed by Trump to be able to be involved in the decision? They were given a lifetime job by Trump and will their loyalty to the position outweigh their possible willingness to thank Trump?

    Let's look at it from the opposite perspective. Let's say the 14th amendment said no birther rights and Obama came along and says he wants to write an executive order changing it so there is a birther right. For many years we have followed the law that there is no birther rights and now on a whim Obama thinks he should be able to overwrite it. We have 3 choices

    1) continue with the same interpretation that has been applied for many years
    2) let congress put forth an addendum to modify the 14th amendment to allow birther citizenship
    3) Let Obama write an executive order to change the amendment

    Even in this scenario I would say 1 or 2 are acceptable, but 3 should never be an option. When presidents are given too much power we end up walking a very slippery slope of abuse of power and with Trump, that's a scary proposition.
     
    CupWizier, Nov 1, 2018
    #188
  9. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except nobody's trying to "change" the amendment. He (purportedly) believes that this is what the amendment was intended to mean in the first place. If we'd been doing something wrong for 150 years, does that mean we should continue to do so?

    For example, when the Supreme Court in 1869 ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that segregation was OK, were we then beholden to accept that as gospel ad infinitum? When the court reversed course on that in Brown v Board of Education 85 years later, should they have not done that because there had been no amendment to correct the wrongful interpretation of the Constitution?

    Now understand, I'm not saying that the 14th does or doesn't support birthright citizenship; I'm simply saying that it's debatably unclear, and that it's not unreasonable to challenge decades of precedent and interpretation without engaging the amendment process.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Nov 1, 2018
    #189
    Natebishop3 and bodyman5000 and 1 like this.
  10. CupWizier

    CupWizier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired
    If some feel the interpretation is said that there are no birther rights, then rewrite it so the language is more clear. Simple as that. From what I have read and listened to some experts is that the way it has been interpreted is the way it should be.
     
    CupWizier, Nov 1, 2018
    #190
  11. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some experts say that. Others say otherwise. No reason not to let the SCOTUS decide. That is, in fact, why it exists.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Nov 1, 2018
    #191
  12. CupWizier

    CupWizier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired
    I disagree, so we can just agree to disagree.
     
    CupWizier, Nov 1, 2018
    #192
  13. Stevenson

    Stevenson Old School

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    5,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    PDX
    I suppose. And few things are black and white in the constitution, but the actual words of the 14th amendment say if you are born here, you are a citizen. Not much to interpret.
     
    Stevenson, Nov 1, 2018
    #193
    oldmangrouch likes this.
  14. CupWizier

    CupWizier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired
    The part that PPP seems to not take into account is that so far nobody is challenging the amendment. Trump simply thinks he can write an executive order and change it.
     
    CupWizier, Nov 1, 2018
    #194
  15. Stevenson

    Stevenson Old School

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    5,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    PDX
    I don't think so. I think Trump is well aware he can't change the Constitution with an executive order. He's just ginning up the troops, and sadly, it works on some people.
     
    Stevenson, Nov 1, 2018
    #195
    Natebishop3 likes this.
  16. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are born in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It's that second part that's up for interpretation.

    Is it territorial jurisdiction or political jurisdiction? Does birthright citizenship of another country (based on the citizenship of the parents) exclude a child from automatically being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US if born on US soil? What was intended when the amendment was first written?

    I don't claim to know or have the time to research it properly. The SCOTUS has the time and responsibility to do so, though.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Nov 1, 2018
    #196
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.
  17. CupWizier

    CupWizier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired
    Trump also says he always tells the truth "when he can". lol
     
    CupWizier, Nov 1, 2018
    #197
  18. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My presumption is that his EO is going to be the challenge--not to the amendment, but to the common interpretation thereof. Again, not changing the constitution, just defining existing legislation. Surely there's actual federal legislation on the books outside of the Constitution regarding citizenship; his EO would be affecting that legislation, and then it would be someone using the 14th to challenge his EO that would make it a constitutional issue.

    Edit: The text of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 (a) is taken directly from the 14th. If he were to sign an EO, it would affect that statute, presumably by codifying clarification to the jurisdiction clause. Again--not changing the Constitution; only federal statute.

    And of course, that's only if this whole thing isn't just Trumpian bluster.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2018
    PtldPlatypus, Nov 1, 2018
    #198
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.
  19. Stevenson

    Stevenson Old School

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    5,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    PDX
    I am not one to quote Fox News, but Judge Napolitano explained this very succinctly in this segment.

    Sorry, it is just not up for interpretation. In the law, we say something like this is "well settled" or, also, that it is clear by the"four corners of the document."
     
    Stevenson, Nov 1, 2018
    #199
  20. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Oh no...a judge said that?...

    That settles it. We've already had something like 12,367 straight 9-0 Supreme Court decisions.

    No way a judge would be wrong.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1, Nov 1, 2018
    #200
Page 10 of 13

Share This Page