Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

You cut out the part of my post that gave the opinion of the person who authored the amendment.

 

Quotes dont get quoted, but I did re-add a part of it speaking about jurisdiction, and I explained my point about it.

 

I’m sure if you dont get your way you will complain about the conservative judges

But I’d rather make you unhappy than allow the anchor baby loophole to continue

 

My way is the Constitutional way. If you want to amend it using the process outlined in the Constitution, I am all for it. If you seek way to undermine the Constitution, I am opposed to it.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not something you modify when you think it get inconvenient.

I have not declared whether or not I like (or dislike) the amendment in question, I am simply saying it is in fact a part of the Constitution, and need to be respected and defended as such.

 

So is my way

I have had to accept court rulings I dont like or agree with

And so will you

 

I guess its a moot point, since the Supreme Court is not about to start voiding the Constitution, no matter how partisan they were.

 

Its not an argument we can settle between ourselves since the Constitution means whatever 5 justices say it means

 

Its a moot point, since they are not considering saying anything about it.

 

Trump will force the issue

Which is why I am so happy he is in the white house now

 

No that just demonstrates you have no real clue how America's judicial sustem works. Trump cannot force the Supreme Court to rule on anything.

In reality he probably won't even isdue his executive order.

 

I am sure you are pumped thinking the Supreme Court dances to the music of the WH.

 

Thats true and I did not say otherwise

But I suspect the courts will want to respond when trump and congress close the anchor baby loophole

 

Unelected demigods who serve for life “answer” to no president

Or to the people for thst matter

But when at least 5 of them get the same idea in their head that becomes the law of the land

 

First the supposed executive order is just a Trump trisl bsllon that will probably disappear after the midterms, And second if he really was stupid enough to issue such an unconstitutioal order it probably would be dismissed by the first court that heard the case.

And it isn't a loophole. It is the Constitution. .

 

You do have a low opinion of the judicial temperament of your justice if you think his ruling is going to be based on his being pissed off.

 

It may very well be a trial balloon

Or, congress may have already ceded that authority to the executive branch

I doubt it but would not rule it out

 

Libs just wont take yes for an answer

Someone else from the left already suggested that Kavanaugh was a predictable vote for trump

And I think thats what you all tend to think

I was just expressing the hope that you are right

 

Who knows. I guess theoretically anything is possible. Maybe the 5 of them roll the Constitution into a giant marijuana joint and smoke it in the courthouse.

 

The Constitution means whatever 5 of them say it means

I have long railed against that fact

But if buzzy ginsberg kicks the bucket while trump is president my side will have a big advantage that I hope we make use of

 

I think you have a very low opinion of the justices if you think they will claim it means something other than it says, especially when the text is clear. That is the "living document" approach where you cancel text claiming it does not apply to current times anymore.

I disagree with the "living document" view, unless the edits are done via the route mandated in the Constitution (amendment process).

 

The judges forced abortion and gay marriage onto the nation

Not to mention obamacare

But there are new demigods at SCOTUS now

 

This declaration by Trump might tickle the ears of the hard core supporters, but generally it is hurting the GOP in the coming mid-terms.

 

That is a decent argumeent for not including ambassadors but I dont think it the reason in this instance. The historical record and common law does appear to show an effort to differentiate between someone that is lawfully becoming/is an American having a kid, and someone that has a kid within the USA that is a citizen of their parents' foreign nation.

Yes, they would void it. Public perception had swung to the point that they, the public (as argued by the deciding Justices) have come to see the 1st does not cover Muslims. I think that would be in line with Judicial Activist thinking.

This is what Originalists are complaining about here. What's the point of Article 5 if we don't need to change the constitution when the public wants it changed when we can just hope an Activist court will hallucinate what they think our preferences are into it?

The concept to me is dangerous to the ideal of self government. We are in danger of Kyriarchy.

 

Yes, there is no clear text in the Constitution about abortion and/or obamacare, so the SCOTUS needed to make a ruling based on their understanding of the Constitution as whole. They are good example of why the SCOTUS exists. When there is clear text on a matter like birthright citizenship, then the only way is to amend it. You wont find a single example where the SCOTUS voided something in the Constitution where clear text exists. If the matter was brought to the SCOTUS, they would say to use the existing process to amend it.

 

The lib judges made new law because they wanted to and because they could

If they new judges rule against the birthright citizenshp scam their word becomes law