It does say that, back in 1886. It was meant for Natives already here so they can be grandfathered in as well as with the free slaves who had nowhere to go. It was meant to fix the problem of the day. There wasnt an ILLEGAL immigrant problem then. Nobody could have seen that coming. To stay with the times, things need to be looked at and possibly changed?
Idiot president will revoke 14th Amendment by executive order
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
There is a process for changing the Constitution, and it is NOT by presidential decree.
Paul Ryan says "you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order"
Fathammer, the judges have to go by the words as written. Not by the words as they might have been written by some other people 150 years after they were actually written by the people who actually wrote those words.
You get to "interpret" words in a legal document when those words are ambiguous, if you're a judge. You don't get to rewrite words that are perfectly clear and unambiguous, just because you would prefer other words be written there. And there's your problem.....
And the US could do the same thing too - by a constitutional amendment. Just sayin'....
The simplest fact is that the Supreme Court had never ruled on the status of the children of illegal immigrants or tourists. The Executive Order will trigger an action that will end before the USSC. The Court is leaning toward the originalist interpretation and might actually narrow the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Ah, the latest twist in "How the Trump Turns"
Doubtful he will have success, but in trying he is once again bypassing the "settled law" argument and taking it directly to the American People.
Doubtful he will have success, but in trying he is once again bypassing the "settled law" argument and taking it directly to the American People.
The "settled law" is a bit of an over reach. Actually, what Trump is attempting is no different from the attempts by the 2nd Amendment opponents. They know that the repeal is almost impossible, so they seek to limit and/or narrow the interpretation through, for example, background checks, type limits, cooling off periods, etc. Some actions are successful are some are not. Either way, this will be interesting, especially with the new composition of the Supreme Court.
It's pretty clearly settled law. In fact, how tf there's even an argument there is a stretch.
The wording is clear. And every other Western hemisphere country IIRC has a similar provision. Total narcissistic waste of time.
and if he gets 80% of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment, he will have succeeded............ Rofl.
Um, France, Germany, Austrailua, New Zealand abolished it. Others on the EU don't have it. India abolished it I believe, as Did Chile.
And the constitution is a dynamic document. Subject to continually testing laws according to the time and changing social constructs.
There is no such animal as settled law. Just agreed upon ones.
I believe that was the "poorly educated". How could they mark an X beside trump's name, and read trump's name if they had no education at all?
As I said, it's doubtful. I get political realities. More than likely the SCOTUS rejects it.
But they can reject it two ways. The first is outright. That settled it for the time being. But if it's close and the dissenting opinion says why, a new challenge can be made within parameters outlined by the court.
Right?
Actually it isn't settled law, as it has never been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The closest the court has gotten was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which many including myself see as distinguishable in that the U.S. Supreme Court held that the parents of a child need to have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States (which I do not believe people illegally in the U.S. or there only on a student or tourist visa have.
Further even earlier in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), (a consolidation of three similar cases) the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, albeit in dicta, that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States"
Perhaps this is an attempt to get the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even if this were a truly legitimate way to address the issue, an Executive order could be undone by a subsequent President.
All of this said the United States and Canada are the only two Western states where a child born to parents who are not themselves legally in the county or who indeed do not have a right of permanent residency is automatically a citizen.
So in the greater scheme of things the President is correct.
Respectfully Oagre, as already stated, it is not actually settled law in the U.S.
I don't know about other states in the Western Hemisphere, but I can state that Canada and the U.S.A are the ONLY developed / aka Western states with unconditional Jus Soli citizenship, most are instead like the U.K. where it is necessary for at least one parent to be a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen or "settled" (a landed immigrant) in the United Kingdom.
And when the 2nd Amendment was written there were no AK-47s or shoulder-held RPGs.
What's your point?
It's "settled law" that the 14th Amendment applies to birthright citizenship with illegal resident parents.
You may not like it. (Frankly, I don't give a shit either way.) But you have to admit that Trump saying he can revoke the US Constitution by executive order is laugh-provoking because he is an idiot.
Respectfully, if this is NOT already settled law, why was it not litigated a century or half-century ago?
If it is not supported by USSC jurisprudence, then it must be supported by lesser level jurisprudence or simply a long period of acceptance and practice. Otherwise, millions of current US citizens and their descendants are "not really US citizens". The USSC is hardly going to kick over THAT ant hill!
And no, the president is not correct. Simply not liking a legal statute and pointing out that many other countries follow a different practice is hardly the same thing as being "correct".
Aardie as usual is doing his best of obfuscation.
It is correct that it is a somewhat silly law to have, and that few other countries have it.
But the discussion is about Trump being able to change the constitution by decree. There Trump is incorrect.
Do you know what's a real waste of time? This conversation, starting with the bullshit title of the thread which has zero relationship with the intent of the President on this issue. It is not a settled law because a) it has never been tested on point, b)the current interpretation flies against the original intent- Google Sen. Jacob Howard and c) "the subject of the jurisdiction there of" doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm pretty confident how an originalist majority Supreme Court will rule in this case. Another win for Trump.
