Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

The 14th Amendment didn't cover American Indians, even when they were outside their reservations.

 

No the language isn't clear,

 

Yep, exactly is was ratified for. The illegals brought here from Africa.

 

Remember, to some RWers, the constitution is just a g-d dam piece of paper.

 

Perhaps they'll make it retro-active to 1939; guess that takes care of Haley, Rubio & Cruz running for President.

 

Next week it will be forgotten it was ever said.

 

Conspire?

Like it or not the SC interprets the Constitution. Back in the day they used to teach this in high school.

 

Right. Like you people have any respect for the 2nd Amendment.

 

proof?

 

Can we void Trump's presiduncy through executive order?

 

I have respect for it. I think it's appropriate for members of state militias, or as the case is today with our federalized, professional military, members of those armed forces to have access to firearms. We just don't need the flawed interpretation of that amendment that persists to this day which allows too many people access to too much fire power, leading to a LOT of accidental and intentional tragedies on a daily basis.

 

I believe what is flawed is your understanding of what the militia is as defined by US law which more or less defines the militia as all males over 17.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

 

I think if you look at the following (go to page 65 question 19d) you will see proof -- but seriously who does not know that liberals do not support the 2nd Amendment.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h8n9gvrqyj/econTabReport.pdf

 

It does not support your claim.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion

 

You already know my argument and choose not to accept it

We will just have to see what the supreme court says

 

Well, we know which way one of the justices will lean, don't we?

 

Libs shouldnt have pissed him off

That was not smart

 

If you actually read the info I provided you will see that 21% of the Clinton voters strongly favor repeal of the 2nd Amendment and 14% somewhat favor the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. With respect to the Trump voters 3% strongly favor repeal of the 2nd Amendment and 3% somewhat favor repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

 

All that has to be done is to interpret it in a way that is favorable to a certain point of view. It is certainly not clear cut as to it's meaning, just as Lefties like to interpret the 2nd A differently. In that regard an EO could clarify the way we are going to interpret it this day forward.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution/

 

In legal terms, this appears to be incorrect. Example: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Were you correct, an Ambassador whose wife, at that time, bore a child at a US hospital, they would have been a born citizen, rather than a citizen of the nation of the parents. The child in those circumstances was not.

A prisoner of war in a US camp, is, colloquially speaking, under US Jurisdiction. That parent, for the sake of argument, bent upon the destruction of the US, would have a child that is automatically a US citizen. Absurd.

The Framers knew this and the legislative history shows this. Native Americans living on reservations were also under US Jurisdiction. But their allegiances were considered to be to the reservation, not the US. They too, at that time, were not US citizens. I believe this was changed not by Constitutional Amendment but Federal Statute. Same for making children born abroad to a foreign father but US mother was statutorily changed to make that child a US Citizen.

All of this pre-supposes we even care what the framers of a law meant by it. There is a very large (majority?) of the legal community that hold the original intent irrelevant. What matters is evolving community standards as deduced by the Judge/Justice deciding a case.

A critique of the Left from the Right: the evolving community standards, for the Left, is always leftward. As they put it for the Left, "What's mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable". Suppose community standards are moving right. Suppose the US is far less tolerant of immigration now than it was in 1965. Do you think the court would then "interpret" law more conservatively? Is the Right correct in their view?

 

This is political rhetoric to fire up the base. It’s not going to go anywhere. As long as Trump says it, nothing else matters...

Jmo

 

Like I said, all 'conservative' judges would have to conspire, not just Kavanaugh, which is very unlikely to happen. The text is too clear, so they wont risk impeachment.

 

The 2nd amendment has been argued for a long time due to the reference to the militia, but the 14th is clear language, and can't be spun any other way.

Why dont they simply start the process of amending it? An EO wont cut it. I don't think there would be much opposition to it, except by those who would lose their citizenship, ot go thought lot of trouble retaining it.

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means what it says. It defines an area were US laws are in effect: within US borders, US embassies, US vessels. If you commit a crime within US jurisdiction, you will be charged according to US laws. Likewise, you are protected by US laws (even if you are a tourist).

 

Ambassadors, by an international agreement, have diplomatic immunity, meaning the US laws, and protection of US laws do not apply. It is so, to prevent diplomats from being arrested for political reasons. If illegals were treated the same way, it would mean they cannot be arrested, and charged for the crimes they commit.

Suppose the US was far less tolerant of muslims than in 1965, do you the think court would view the 1st amendment more 'conservatively' and void it, claiming the circumstances have changed? That kind of Supreme Court would render the Constitution meaningless.