HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

Damocles said:
It really depends on how he words it and what they decide. I still believe that this is a ploy to get a ruling on the Amendment itself. You'll notice that this did not grant citizenship to the Native Americans... Which, again, were granted citizenship by act of Congress in 1924... The ruling on jurisdiction is necessary. Personally I think it would go against Trump.
Click to expand...

I think a lower court would throw it out and the SC would not vote to hear it on appeal.
 
Damocles said:
I wonder if we'll ever see. As I said before, if he even does it...
Click to expand...

It is just another tactic to stir up the troops before election day. Like getting a middle-class tax cut passed by Congress before the election (although Congress will not reconvene until after the election).
 
Damocles said:
It really depends on how he words it and what they decide. I still believe that this is a ploy to get a ruling on the Amendment itself. You'll notice that this did not grant citizenship to the Native Americans... Which, again, were granted citizenship by act of Congress in 1924... The ruling on jurisdiction is necessary. Personally I think it would go against Trump..
Click to expand...
Not sure how it would go.
I've read a lot of arguments both ways,and just because it was heard in 1898 doesn't mean much today -
there is precedence but not to the level of stare decisis

SCOTUS may or may not take the jurisdictional thing either way.
It deserves to go to SCOTUS, and I'm sure that's part of the equation here
 
anatta said:
Not sure how it would go.
I've read a lot of arguments both ways,and just because it was heard in 1898 doesn't mean much today -
there is precedence but not to the level of stare decisis

SCOTUS may or may not take the jurisdictional thing either way.
It deserves to go to SCOTUS, and I'm sure that's part of the equation here
Click to expand...

Precedent is stare decisis. It is the long established view and obviously accepted law since everybody born here becomes a citizen. The states and federal government recognize these people as citizens on birth certificates, passports, driver's licenses, etc. Since there is no question about the legality of citizenship (only a difference of opinion among some) there is nothing the Supreme Court needs to hear currently.

Or, as I stated earlier, federal naturalization law makes a child born here U. S. citizens. No matter how we interpret the 14th, Congress still makes naturalization law which makes them citizens.
 
Flash said:
Precedent is stare decisis. It is the long established view and obviously accepted law since everybody born here becomes a citizen. The states and federal government recognize these people as citizens on birth certificates, passports, driver's licenses, etc. Since there is no question about the legality of citizenship (only a difference of opinion among some) there is nothing the Supreme Court needs to hear currently.

Or, as I stated earlier, federal naturalization law makes a child born here U. S. citizens. No matter how we interpret the 14th, Congress still makes naturalization law which makes them citizens.
Click to expand...
I look at stare decisis as more then just precedence - i look at decisions that reinforce precedence as stare decisis.
It's a small point.

Obviously we are talking if a challenge takes to that precedence.
"there is nothing the Supreme Court needs to hear currently."

The other question is if a Constitutional amendment is needed for Congress to change interpretation/enforcement -
or can SCOTUS simply affirm or not any changes..interesting stuff
 
anatta said:
Not sure how it would go.
I've read a lot of arguments both ways,and just because it was heard in 1898 doesn't mean much today -
there is precedence but not to the level of stare decisis

SCOTUS may or may not take the jurisdictional thing either way.
It deserves to go to SCOTUS, and I'm sure that's part of the equation here
Click to expand...

Stare decisis?? Where have you been?. The Supreme Court voided that principle in bush v gore 2000.
 
The final sentence of 14A is "the congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." So congress can simply ban birthright citizenship and if the courts say no, there will be trouble.
 
Flash said:
The SC would not be ruling on the amendment. They would be ruling on the president's power to change the Constitution by executive order.

They already ruled on this issue in U. S. vs. Wong Kim Ark
Click to expand...

So how is trump changing the constitution??? Most people say the courts changed the 14A when they said it mandates birthright citizenship. THINK
 
Micawber said:
Illegal woman comes to US and works as a maid cleaning Trump hotels for 10 years, gets raped
by a Trumptard disciple and gives birth in US. Child grows up and becomes a medical doctor for 25 years.
Trump signs an executive order banning birthright citizenship and ICE rounds her up during a brain surgery
and deports him/her.

These Trumpkins think that mom's status as undocumented should determine whether
this person gets to be a citizen in the only country he/she has ever known?

Take the locus of your attention off what the undocumented immigrant did and focus on the
child born here and your opinion on this should change, Republitard, unless you have no moral at all.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, you'll be the patient during her surgery.
 
floridafan said:
As usual you are full of shit. mr. Obama never tried to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually, he did. When you claim as many times as he did that you don't have the Constitutional power to do something then do it expecting people to accept it, it's what you refuse to admit he did.

Pucker up.
 
CFM said:
Actually, he did. When you claim as many times as he did that you don't have the Constitutional power to do something then do it expecting people to accept it, it's what you refuse to admit he did.

Pucker up.
Click to expand...

Would you document exactly where are how Obama tried to change the constitution?
 
floridafan said:
Would you document exactly where are how Obama tried to change the constitution?
Click to expand...

Would you please show the ability to type a single sentence without using the wrong word or a misspelling?

Already did and you automatically puckered up in his defense. Keep kissing but you better hold your place in line. Kuntzu is trying to work her way up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top