• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS will NOT rule in Favor of Trump's EO overriding 14th Amendment

jnug said:
Yes you were.

If Trump wanted to bark up that tree he should not have used a predetermination of affirmation through SC judgement in his public loudmouth political messaging. He slammed the door on his own foot. You don't come to court with an utterly specious legal argument after having made a public pronouncement of predetermination claiming an affirmative court ruling on that specious argument in advance. Those Justices owe him nothing at this point. They are there for life and they are not going to tarnish this session of the court for his benefit over something this stupid.

As usual the blowhard simply does not know when he is going too far. He is and has been for a long time, a dangerous blowhard, dangerous to himself, dangerous now to all Americans. Heck he is without question the most dangerous man in the world.
Click to expand...

The primary focus was to fire up his base with specious rhetoric. That being said, If there is follow thru and the case makes its way to the courts, even if the justices don’t owe him anything, that doesn’t mean they will shy away from their ideology. Activism has been embraced by the conservatives on the court before. As I said earlier , let’s see how this plays out.
 
Ideology....you think they make judgements on ideology without laying a constitutional foundation? Ah-huh.

I will admit they get it horribly wrong and have gotten it horribly wrong in occasionally having laid a constitutional foundation on quicksand. They don't have a way to a constitutional foundation of any sort with regard to an EO and the 14th, on quicksand or otherwise. Any sort of decision along the lines of Trump's direction with regard to an EO would draw fire from English language scholars, let alone constitutional law scholars....not going to happen.
 
WCH said:
I'm talking about specific wording in the 2nd. ["subject to the jurisdiction" is the disputed line in the 14th.]
Click to expand...

How about the entire wording, works for me.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But if the child was born in the United States, they have no connections to the country where their parents came from.
Click to expand...

Most countries have their citizenship extend to the child of parents who are citizens.

These are people who are illegally smuggling into the country... I am not talking about green-card owners or worker visa's, I'mtalking about people who are illegally here in the USA... they have no connection to the USA, only the country them came from.
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
Anyone standing on our soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...

A US citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere they go.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
A US citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere they go.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The law has to expressly state that it has extra territorial jurisdisction or some of the behavior leading to the crime has to take place in the US.

As far as I know the only federal laws that apply overseas are ones related to having to pay federal income tax and those dealing with drug trafficking and money laundering though there are probably others.
 
OscarLevant said:
When asked, the only offerings pro-Trumper's have given thus far on birthright citizenship of anchor babies was this, afaict:

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment


Funny thing about it, though....

I"m seeing an opinion by someone, I'm not seeing any quotes from forefathers and framers of the constitution, nor 14, that supports this. In fact, most legal scholars would consider Elbes ( the above article's author ) a radical, and not in the mainstream of legal thinking on 14.

All Elbel asserts is that it wasnt the framers of 14's intent. But, still, no evidence is offered. And the evidence he does offer doesnt' actually support his assertion, either.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-end-birthright-citizenship-legal-experts-say


Remember, Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist, if it's not in the Constitution, and there is no law, then he's not going to project into it, he's said this on a number of occasions. Scalia would see this as dead on arrival, a no brainer.

In short, the wording in the Constitution is plain as day, it says "ALL". All means everyone born in the united states. "Subject to" doesn't alter "all". If it meant to say otherwise, it would have said it. subject to means the sons and daughters of a certain class, diplomats, etc, and that is spelled out in more legislation

And, in 1952. congress passed this law, and note that it does not say 'babies born in the United States from foreign born non-citizens shall shall not be granted citizenship". If that was the intent, it would have spelled it out, but it doesn't.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Nothing in any of the articles, words of the forefathers, asserts son and daughters that foreign born are exempt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.22ea68deef2f


Neither SCOTUS nor Congress have ruled that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means anchor babies get no citizenship.

For, if that were the intent, as easy as it would have been to so state, one wonders why it doesn't.

The answer is simple, it doesnt' say it, because it wasn't the intent, therefore SCOTUS will rule against Trump if he tries it. Moreover, ALL persons born in the US have been granted citizenship has been the norm for a long long time. Precedent is not in Trump's favor.

Yes, Kavanaugh has expressed a sentiment that suggests he favors expansion of presidential power, but when he said it, he also expressed hope that Congress would make a law so that he could so rule, suggesting that, without it, he won't. This was the one important point Sen. Collins brought out to support Kavanaugh.

Therefore, not specifically addressed in law or the constitution, Kavanaugh will not rule in favor of Trump on this, and he will be the deciding vote. That's my bet.

I believe in birthright citizenship. Imagine if that person were you, wouldn't you like to know that America is a country that assures your citizenhip in the country you are born in?

Imagine if it were not, and your parent's country doesn't take you either, you are a person without a citizenship anywhere, what happens to you, then?

This idea against birthright citizenship is a greater evil that the alleged evil it creates, with which I disagree, 100%.
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you babbling about? Trump's not a dictator. If he should do this and it doesn't pass the muster, then it doesn't pass the muster. Why are you getting your panties in a wad?
 
Gaius46 said:
Not quite. The law has to expressly state that it has extra territorial jurisdisction or some of the behavior leading to the crime has to take place in the US.

As far as I know the only federal laws that apply overseas are ones related to having to pay federal income tax and those dealing with drug trafficking and money laundering though there are probably others.
Click to expand...

Understood, but if they can pass a law that applies to you, you are still under their jurisdiction, just that sometimes they decide you aren't. You don't get to decide that.
 
Moderate Right said:
What on Earth are you babbling about? Trump's not a dictator. If he should do this and it doesn't pass the muster, then it doesn't pass the muster. Why are you getting your panties in a wad?
Click to expand...

Piss off.

Trump is a wannabe dictator.
 
jamesrage said:
Funny how libs cite Jefferon's letter to a bunch of baptist for their separation of church and state and Jefferson wasn't even the one who drafted the bill of right.But here there is a quote from one of the authors of the 14th amendment and you want to pretend it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


The problem is that it's NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
 
The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to black people and their descendants, especially former slaves and their children. It was in response to the SCOTUS "Dred Scott" ruling, which denied citizenship to black people: The ''Negro,'' or ''African race,'' according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution.

It is simply insane to think the 14th Amendment was designed to give citizenship to the children of people who come here illegally.

Trump's actions will start the ball rolling in a long overdue correction to the 14th Amendment, and it may even come down to a new Constitutional Amendment clarifying the intent of the 14th Amendment. No matter what happens, in the end, the children of illegal aliens will not have citizenship.
 
OscarLevant said:
Piss off.

Trump is a wannabe dictator.
Click to expand...

Obama was a wannabe dictator. He signed EO's every time he couldn't get the Republican Congress to pass what he wanted. Wannabes are wannabes. Trump is no different than Obama. When he's voted out of office or has served his two terms the next president will come along. It really doesn't matter if both Trump and Obama wanted to be dictators.
 
jamesrage said:
Who SPLC calls a hate group or doesn't call a hate group is irrelevant due to SPLC being nothing more than partisan hacks who falsely label any one against illegal immigration as a hate group or white supremacist . So you will have to find something actually credible. And doesn't change the quote.
Click to expand...

The SPLC applies the same litmus test to all groups regardless of ideology. It's not the SPLC's fault that there are more right wing extremists groups that fit the hate/violence criteria than all the others. So it really begs the question...why are there so many far right wing extremist hate groups? And what can we do about it?
 
Anybody noticed how some in the thread have let their hair down and have revealed their true intentions. They are decidedly against all immigration, unless its White immigration which is hysterical. Generally speaking White people living in the Industrial West outside of the US have it better than we do. They don't want to come here.

Whites that want to come here are Russian GRU and FSB agents, Russian assassins, Russian money launderers, members of the Russian Mafia.... you know, friends of Donald.
 
Moderate Right said:
Obama was a wannabe dictator. He signed EO's every time he couldn't get the Republican Congress to pass what he wanted. Wannabes are wannabes. Trump is no different than Obama. When he's voted out of office or has served his two terms the next president will come along. It really doesn't matter if both Trump and Obama wanted to be dictators.
Click to expand...



Not really, but that's what you want to believe.
 
Moot said:
The SPLC applies the same litmus test to all groups regardless of ideology. It's not the SPLC's fault that there are more right wing extremists groups that fit the hate/violence criteria than all the others. So it really begs the question...why are there so many far right wing extremist hate groups? And what can we do about it?
Click to expand...

SPLC is a group that falsely lables anti-illegal immigration groups as racist or anti-immigrant or a hate group. So they have no credibility.
 
PragmaticOne said:
The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to black people and their descendants, especially former slaves and their children. It was in response to the SCOTUS "Dred Scott" ruling, which denied citizenship to black people: The ''Negro,'' or ''African race,'' according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution.

It is simply insane to think the 14th Amendment was designed to give citizenship to the children of people who come here illegally.

Trump's actions will start the ball rolling in a long overdue correction to the 14th Amendment, and it may even come down to a new Constitutional Amendment clarifying the intent of the 14th Amendment. No matter what happens, in the end, the children of illegal aliens will not have citizenship.
Click to expand...
Why is it so insane? Are children of illegal immigrants any more culpable or unworthy of citizenship than descendants of slaves brought into the country against their will? The true fault in both cases is the government’s for enabling the fact of their parents’ entry.

The drafters of the 14th could easily have written that all former slaves and their living descendants born in the US shall be citizens, if that was their only intent. They chose to use meaningfully broader language out of recognition of the country’s past mistake of subjecting millions of human beings to second class status due to circumstances of birth and race/ethnicity. The provision of citizenship to those born here prevents the government from exercising jurisdiction over such persons to create, in effect, a new class of slaves.

I also do not think illegal immigration was any kind of concern when the 14th amendment was drafted. The US had basically completely open immigration policy until the 1880s. The fact that the government didn’t anticipate a particular application or concerns that might exist 100+ years in the future is not a basis for ignoring the plain meaning of their language.
 
Last edited:
Grokmaster said:
Strict Constitutionalists will see the phrase "under the jurisdiction of..." as already legal citizens, instead of the "anyone who is standing on our soil" left version, most likely...so, no , you're likely wrong.
Click to expand...

No, people who are within our borders Etc or are not diplomats as ruled which is what subject to the jurisdiction means-' whether or not you're in the list of exempted , so the rest is everyone else
 
NotreDame said:
This is not true. The U.S., since 1790, has granted immunity from the jurisdiction of the U.S. to certain classes of people.
Click to expand...
They’re called diplomats. ALL OTHERS ARE SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom