Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
The "Constitutionalist" test: Birthright citizenship
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 69
| visibility 1

The "Constitutionalist" test: Birthright citizenship


Oct 30, 2018, 8:06 AM

Let's pretend Trump actually meant what he said about ending birthright citizenship through executive order. This, of course, is a right laid out in the 14th Amendment.

Whether you agree with birthright citizenship or not doesn't really matter in this discussion.

What matters if is if you truly are the "constitutionalist" you claim you are, or if you really think Trump is as well.

Because if you are, you shouldn't support any president attempting an executive order to make that change. You should support Congress and the process making that change. That's what a constitutionalist would want.

If you do want something like that wiped out with executive order, just admit you really just want a dictator at this point. Yes, that would include Obama if he tried it.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: The "Constitutionalist" test: Birthright citizenship


Oct 30, 2018, 8:10 AM

Why the heck you creating more threads. You dolt. There is already a thread about this issue.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Cry about it, you big baby.***


Oct 30, 2018, 8:12 AM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


He has a point*******


Oct 30, 2018, 8:14 AM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: He has a point*******


Oct 30, 2018, 8:18 AM



I'll start a thread whenever I want. However I when. Wherever I want. My point is collectively address all folks who claim to be Constitutionalists and see if their claims hold water.

Here's how the message board works. If you don't want to read something, don't click on it. Thread police are dumb.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: He has a point*******


Oct 30, 2018, 8:36 AM

I think the new question here is do you donate?

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

sig-1


Us libs want everything for free


Oct 30, 2018, 8:46 AM

Duh

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

To what?***


Oct 30, 2018, 10:09 AM [ in reply to Re: He has a point******* ]



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Everything past the Bill of Rights is negotiable for


Oct 30, 2018, 8:23 AM

Constitutionalist.

hth

The 10th Amendment is a republic-builder. The 14th is a republic-killer. Never liked the 14th. 13th was sufficient IMO. 14th effectively nullifies the 10th on any issue the federal government deems important. That universe of issues only grows.

I'm all for Trump enforcing existing immigration laws. He tried doing exactly what Bill Clinton did, which was lawful at the time, and caved. He needs to do that more. If no one gets in illegally (laws are enforced), you lose the supply of anchor babies.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


But it's not negotiable...


Oct 30, 2018, 8:27 AM

For how we change, pass, and repeal those amendments. Shouldn't we all agree with that?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Anyway you slice it, it's not a good idea to have a formal


Oct 30, 2018, 8:30 AM

Amendment changed by the EO of a sitting president

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


It won't. It's not going to happen.


Oct 30, 2018, 8:41 AM

If he tries it, it will bog down in the courts and never go into effect.

Nope. His best bet is just enforcing the laws on the books. Got a problem with that then let Congress do their job then and enact reforms.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


He doesn't need court approval to enforce anything.


Oct 30, 2018, 10:03 AM

Lincoln didn't need it to suspend habeas corpus.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


All Lincoln needed was a Civil War.***


Oct 30, 2018, 10:11 AM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Yes and I'm hoping our next one happens now


Oct 30, 2018, 11:34 AM

while Trump is in control. We absolutely have to crush communism.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


And how are we exactly drawing up the sides?***


Oct 30, 2018, 2:50 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: And how are we exactly drawing up the sides?***


Oct 30, 2018, 3:36 PM

:)



badge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: And how are we exactly drawing up the sides?***


Oct 30, 2018, 5:05 PM

My thoughts exactly.

Every time I go on Reddit, particularly r/politics, I see nothing but hundreds to thousands of leftists screaming for violence and demanding a revolution to kill trump and all republicans.

Its quite comical, because they are screaming about initiating war against the most highly armed demographic of people in the country.

The Left thinks life is a Disney or Anime movie, or Star Wars, where some confused, blue haired socialist that watches cartoons all day will pull off some sort of hail mary-esque, morally superior revolution that will totally eradicate all of the people they disagree with, while magically not using any practical or tactical means to do so.

Its like they think they can waltz into an actual civil war, sing a few Disney songs, and boom, the world will suddenly be how they want it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The only side I've heard calling for a civil war...


Oct 31, 2018, 3:25 PM

Is the Trumpie side. Be honest. You want it, don't you? You want to kill some fellow Americans?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


so now we cant "interpret?"


Oct 30, 2018, 8:33 AM [ in reply to But it's not negotiable... ]

its funny how it means what it says until it doesnt





UNTIL IT DOES!!!!

How about this, any pregnant illegal immigrant will be forcibly aborted.

It follows the 14th in that the fetus is not born in the US

And it follows whatever amendment y'all made up under Roe v Wade.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No because even that's negotiable.


Oct 30, 2018, 8:39 AM [ in reply to But it's not negotiable... ]

5th Amendment says "Hello! I'm still here."

Our founding fathers saw a danger in limiting Constitutional amendments only to Congress and a single federal legislative body. Not only for what they may pass as amendments, but what they also will never pass as amendments (eg. balanced budget, term limits on Congress, etc.)

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I'm merely discussing...


Oct 30, 2018, 10:17 AM

A president's ability to override the Constitution through EO. Not the actual matter at hand. And that's not negotiable. There are ways to change the Constitution, and it doesn't go through the president's whims and wishes.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


A president can easily override the constitution


Oct 30, 2018, 11:12 AM

With an EO.

And the Supreme Court can easily nullify the action by ruling it unconstitutional. That’s the whole point of this zany, awesome system of govt we have with its whacky separation of powers.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


yeah, but, should a POTUS issue an EO....


Oct 30, 2018, 11:50 AM

that they know the SCOTUS will strike down just to have a political fight. For me, the POTUS ought to have some reasonable logic behind why they think the EO is Constitutional, otherwise, they are effectively "breaking the law."

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I doubt the President would know the 14th amendment


Oct 30, 2018, 11:54 AM

From the 14th hole at Pebble Beach, but I bet he has someone telling him that he can do it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

breaking the law? In my opinion, no.


Oct 30, 2018, 12:10 PM [ in reply to yeah, but, should a POTUS issue an EO.... ]

Wasting a lot of time and money? Yes.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


(Thinks a president can change the constitution with an EO)


Oct 30, 2018, 8:35 AM

Holy ####, just LOL.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So you're laughing at Trump or what?***


Oct 30, 2018, 8:39 AM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What color is the sky in your world?***


Oct 30, 2018, 8:41 AM [ in reply to (Thinks a president can change the constitution with an EO) ]



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Russian troll.***


Oct 30, 2018, 10:17 AM [ in reply to (Thinks a president can change the constitution with an EO) ]



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


I'm very much opposed to such an EO....


Oct 30, 2018, 8:39 AM

this is exactly the kind of move that many on the right criticized President Obama on...in fact it's worse in a sense because Obama was using EO's to change laws...Trump is suggesting using an EO to go up against what is directly spelled out in the Constitution. Sure it's a little more nuanced than that, but not by much.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I'm very much opposed to such an EO...


Oct 30, 2018, 8:46 AM

Think: How long will an EO like this last before its challenged by the looney left? One, maybe two hours? Now think: How does one go about getting a constitutional issue in front of the US Supreme Court?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This issue has been before the SCOTUS before....


Oct 30, 2018, 8:59 AM

the POTUS shouldn't use an EO like this...don't care if they're trying to get something before the court or not.

And "Looney Left"? It should be challenged by the most conservative persons.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: This issue has been before the SCOTUS before....


Oct 30, 2018, 9:27 AM

How else is supposed to shine a light on it? The more controversy and debate on the subject, the more likely it will be taken up by the court. They turn down way more cases than they hear.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You think the only/best way to shine light on this...


Oct 30, 2018, 9:33 AM

issue is an unconstitutional EO?

The POTUS could tweet rational thoughts on the subject on a daily basis and get plenty of attention. He could challenge Congress to take up the issue.

I believe one shouldn't do something they know is unconstitutional, regardless of the reason, but especially "just to shine a light on it."

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: You think the only/best way to shine light on this...


Oct 30, 2018, 11:50 AM

Meanwhile 6000+ migrants are approaching our southern border. If they cross over, guess where they're headed...sanctuary cities, where they're immune from the law. If you break a law is there anywhere you can run to and declare sanctuary?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

what does this have to do with the OP?....


Oct 30, 2018, 3:42 PM

and are you suggesting that since there are sanctuary cities that shield illegals from federal law enforcement (which I detest btw), that the POTUS doesn't have to behave within the confines of the Constitution?

If not...please make your point plain.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Exactly...


Oct 30, 2018, 10:10 AM [ in reply to I'm very much opposed to such an EO.... ]

Honestly, I would be fine with doing away with all EOs.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


How would the executive fulfill his role of executing


Oct 30, 2018, 10:52 AM

the laws, without ever issuing executive orders? That'd be like your boss never telling you to do anything.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: How would the executive fulfill his role of executing


Oct 30, 2018, 2:49 PM

Did just fine without them for nearly 100 years in our nation's history.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: Exactly...


Oct 30, 2018, 12:06 PM [ in reply to Exactly... ]

EO's are more or less directives to be executed by the executive branch. Trump runs his govt like any President would: issuing orders to his govt agencies.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I'm very much opposed to such an EO....


Oct 30, 2018, 5:18 PM [ in reply to I'm very much opposed to such an EO.... ]

The reason Trump issued this EO is so that way the debate over the 14th Amendment goes to the SCOTUS as fast as possible.

If Liberals are smart, they WONT appeal this EO, because it will be sent to a Republican dominated SCOTUS.



This is the 1st section of the 14th Amendment that is fueling this debate: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The supporting documents from the Founders make the first sentence imply that children who are offspring of a US citizen, born in the US, are US citizens.

However, the actual wording of the amendment has allowed that to be challenged, and unfortunately, no one has taken up the fight with a SCOTUS-eligible legal challenge until now.

Thus far, the 14th has been loosely interpreted, so much so that we have established the status quo that "if a migrant child is born within US borders, even if his parents are illegals, the child is a US citizen." This has created the phenomena of "anchor babies".

Trump is trying to end the debate over the 14th Amendment. Trump and the Republicans want the 14th to be interpreted as "Children born from migrant parents within US borders are NOT American citizens."

Now, Trump knows any other method of fighting this battle will result in a massive media circus and would require getting Congress and the States on board to ratify a new Constitutional Amendment that replaces the 14th. That is likely not going to work and would be too hard to accomplish, especially with the impending midterms.

But, Trump also knows that the SCOTUS can definitively and permanently decide how the 14th can be interpreted IF a court case related to this interpretation is brought before the SCOTUS.

Hence, the Executive Order. Trump is not issuing this EO with the expectation of it being followed, he is issuing it expecting that it will be CHALLENGED in court by the Left and appealed to the SCOTUS, who will rule in favor of the Trump/Republican agenda.


Its a genius move by the President, and if the Left wants to preserve their open borders and anchor baby policy, they wont challenge this. If this EO goes to the SCOTUS, it will be decided and the SCOTUS will likely rule that"children of American parents born in the US borders are US citizens. Children born from migrant parents in the US borders are NOT American citizens."

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The "Constitutionalist" test: Birthright citizenship


Oct 30, 2018, 8:46 AM

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Really it is in how one interprets the "Born" portion. Does it many any person visiting, crossing a border or does it actually mean born to a citizen. I'll leave that up to Constitutional Scholars/Lawyers to decide and not rely on message board warriors for a legal ruling. CUrrent SCOTUS makeup sugggests it could be viewed differently, just a thought.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The purpose, not that it matters anymore, was to ensure


Oct 30, 2018, 8:58 AM

freed slaves in the United States became citizens. If you asked anyone in Congress the day they voted on the 14th Amendment, they would all say it was drafted to 1) Ensure all freed slaves became citizens, and 2) to ensure the states treat all citizens (freed slaves) equally through equal protection.

It was totally geared towards former slaves (freed slaves) and their future.

If you asked them if a yea vote meant people of the same gender could get married and unborn fetuses could be extracted from the womb and killed, jaws would have dropped. Promise. I'd wager that if you asked them if a yea vote meant that anyone who could get into the US and drop a baby, that baby would then be a citizen, they would also disagree.

But hey, that's what we have Congress for, right?

Anyway, just another "constitutionalist" perspective. If it lives and breathes, it will suffer the same fate as everything else on Earth that lives and breathes.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: The purpose, not that it matters anymore, was to ensure


Oct 30, 2018, 9:12 AM

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a correct answer. Like I said it will all boil down to how the current SCOTUS views this and any ruling that comes from it. Trump can sign it, gets challenged in Federal Court where it is overturned, fast tracked to the SCOTUS for review. Whether they choose to review it who knows but in the end that decision will come from them on final determination.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If it makes it to SCOTUS it won't be judged on the merit of


Oct 30, 2018, 9:16 AM

The amendment but on the merit of the president changing amendments with EO's which will not hold up.

If you want SCOTUS to rule on the amendment itself, it would have to be brought before the court as that. However, years of president would not over turn it.

Lawyers of the board can correct me if I'm wrong

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


Re: If it makes it to SCOTUS it won't be judged on the merit of


Oct 30, 2018, 9:21 AM

Depends upon how the appeal is filed, that is how it will reach SCOTUS. IMO the anchor baby issue should be addressed in a ruling from SCOTUS, one way or the other put it to rest. DO you really think that it will be filed solely as an issue on using a EO or broader to include determination of status.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

My personal opinion is EO


Oct 30, 2018, 9:23 AM

A lot easier to have SCOTUS strike it down than ruling on a long standing formal amendment and the action is the motivation to appeal in this case.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


Re: If it makes it to SCOTUS it won't be judged on the merit of


Oct 30, 2018, 9:25 AM [ in reply to If it makes it to SCOTUS it won't be judged on the merit of ]

Also they are not going to rule on the whole ammendment but a small portion in an interpretation on what "born" actually means. That is the key and all that matters in fact.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It wouldn't be about changing the amendment...


Oct 30, 2018, 9:29 AM [ in reply to If it makes it to SCOTUS it won't be judged on the merit of ]

It would be about whether the amendment disallows the specific executive order.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on whether an amendment should be there, or rule on changing the text. That can only be done by Congress or a Convention of the States. The Court only interprets the language that is there.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The challenge would be the executive order. The issue would


Oct 30, 2018, 9:39 AM

be "born" in the Amendment. Will probably not even see the SCOTUS as a challenge to an EO. Proper standing would require an action against an anchor baby to really address the issue. Just my thoughts.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: It wouldn't be about changing the amendment...


Oct 30, 2018, 9:41 AM [ in reply to It wouldn't be about changing the amendment... ]

You just made my arguement, it will not be about changing or deleting the ammendment but about what it means which falls under the SCOTUS jurisdiction. All depends upon how the motion is filed for review by SCOTUS.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Better be filed on behalf of an anchor baby


Oct 30, 2018, 9:46 AM

An EO challenge will never fly in the SCOTUS.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


The clause "and subject to the jurisdiction of..."


Oct 30, 2018, 9:09 AM

May be the Constitutional mechanism for such an EO. But it would be decided by the Supreme Court. I'd be interested in the result of that case.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The clause "and subject to the jurisdiction of..."


Oct 30, 2018, 9:30 AM

Same here. I'm interested to see how the jurisdiction clause is interpreted for people that are essentially trespassing on our land.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

no, that's already been settled....


Oct 30, 2018, 9:35 AM [ in reply to The clause "and subject to the jurisdiction of..." ]

an illegal alien is still "subject to the jurisdiction"

That clause had to do with indians at the time.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can you cite the case in which it was settled?***


Oct 30, 2018, 9:36 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

might take me a while....I read up on it last night...


Oct 30, 2018, 9:39 AM

but don't remember the case off the top of my head and I'm getting off a plane now.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's OK...thanks. Maybe I can find it.


Oct 30, 2018, 9:54 AM

I, too, don't really have the time to dig around right now.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is just The Trumpinator appealing to his base before an


Oct 30, 2018, 9:30 AM

election. Interpret it as this:

"IF I COULD, I would pass an EO to get rid of this anchor-baby thing that was never even dreamed of when the 14th amendment was ratified." His staunch supporters love that stuff.

I don't know if he thinks he can actually do that or not. If he tries and fails, he can still say, "I tried."

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


One problem I see is, if it were to be decided by SCOTUS


Oct 30, 2018, 9:33 AM

That the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to children born of non-citizens, then that could immediately invalidate citizenship of a large number of people, who are currently considered citizens.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: One problem I see is, if it were to be decided by SCOTUS


Oct 30, 2018, 9:43 AM

Grandfather them in and establish from this point forward one must be born to at least 1 citizen of the USA. Simple, easy and the correct thing to do in this case.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: One problem I see is, if it were to be decided by SCOTUS


Oct 30, 2018, 9:52 AM

Needs to be 2 US citizen parents. Otherwise you'll create a huge migration of single Spanish women..wait, hold on...

"A caravan of 5800 Spanish women has breach the Guatemala-Mexico border and are headed to the US.."

I think we just solved this.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: One problem I see is, if it were to be decided by SCOTUS


Oct 30, 2018, 10:01 AM

No, it should be 1. Incoming caravan does not matter as they would already need to be pregnant for it to matter in an Anchor baby issue ready to give birth upon US soil. How can one create an issue of huge numbers coming if the rule is 1 US citizen parent? Unless those sneaky libs are flying down , impregnating them on the march and hoping it survives till term and the mother reaches US soil?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Dems might someday wish they'd approved of deportations.


Oct 30, 2018, 9:42 AM

When they realize the Mexicans here are really looking for work and the Mexicans realize the dems don't promote economic growth that increases and protects jobs the dems may indeed regret their position on illegal immigration.

They may also wish a Dem POTUS to do exactly what Trump is claiming to try and do.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

here’s an interesting read on “subject to jurisdiction....”


Oct 30, 2018, 10:34 AM

Might give some insight on how one founding father viewed the topic......sorry if it’s already been posted.

https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/FOEA-03-01-02-0502

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


and as an aside, this stuff is fascinating.


Oct 30, 2018, 10:44 AM

It’s amazing to have the ability to read their letters.....really gives you the best feel possible of the times....

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


They owned slaves and anyone who owned slaves should...


Oct 31, 2018, 7:10 PM

have their names and works struck from history.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The "Constitutionalist" test: Birthright citizenship


Oct 30, 2018, 11:16 AM

EO's are not laws. They hold no weight of law.

EO's are LITERALLY presidential memos.


Even if he did create this EO, it would be nothing more than words on paper. Literally nothing would happen. It would be nothing more than an official statement from the President expressing his opinion. Its no different and holds no more weight of law than a twitter post.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The "Constitutionalist" test: Birthright citizenship


Oct 30, 2018, 11:45 AM

It's only purpose is to trigger a lower court override, as was done with the travel ban in 2017. Then take it up the chain of command to the Supreme Court.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 69
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic