Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Dude...come...on...
I wrote that I agree with executive orders that support the constitution.
If an EO supports the constitution, then it is legal at the most base level.
Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship
- Thread starter Catskillkid
- Start date
I wrote that I agree with executive orders that support the constitution.
If an EO supports the constitution, then it is legal at the most base level.
So the proper channels couldn't be followed because...?
You know this is exactly what the dems felt with Obummer in.
I dont remember what Obama did but if it was to correct a constitutional interpretation from wrong to right, id be good with that.
I also dont like EOs but if they are for the better of our country, thats what they are for.
I have a feeling Obama used them to further the progressive agenda......not further the American agenda.
Because our congress is useless.
Trump is using his power to do what the pussies in congress wont.
He signs the order, a lib judge stops it, it goes to SCOTUS.
Just another way to MAGA.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Congress has every right to be useless and obstructionist if they so choose. That's how it works. Didn't see people bit ching about it when they were digging in trying to prevent Obama from doing even more harm than he was able to do.
Congress is spineless, I admit that freely.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
My naturalization law is quite rusty . I used to have this shit down pat .
This is a very complex and diverse subject , Laws have been changed over the years since the first immigration laws went into effect .Its not always as clean cut as you would expect. There are two ways to derive citizenship , the principles are Jus soli , the law of soil, place of birth, and the law of jus sanguinis
The law of blood, deriving your citizenship through your parents.
I believe there was a law back in 2001 which stated that a child of an illegal immigrant born in the US derives citizenship through jus Soli, but the parents do not. The parents cannot stay and must take the baby back with them . The baby still retains their US citizenship and can return to US at 16 or 18 years of age. AKA Anchor babies.
This gets complicated when the child parent is single, or when one parent is a USC and the other isn't and the baby was born in international waters ,or other country's ,
The argument is that since the parents entered without permission and illegally , they are not under the jurisdiction of US law , Hence not ""born in subject to"" . But that has never been ruled on by the courts .
This is a very complex and diverse subject , Laws have been changed over the years since the first immigration laws went into effect .Its not always as clean cut as you would expect. There are two ways to derive citizenship , the principles are Jus soli , the law of soil, place of birth, and the law of jus sanguinis
The law of blood, deriving your citizenship through your parents.
I believe there was a law back in 2001 which stated that a child of an illegal immigrant born in the US derives citizenship through jus Soli, but the parents do not. The parents cannot stay and must take the baby back with them . The baby still retains their US citizenship and can return to US at 16 or 18 years of age. AKA Anchor babies.
This gets complicated when the child parent is single, or when one parent is a USC and the other isn't and the baby was born in international waters ,or other country's ,
The argument is that since the parents entered without permission and illegally , they are not under the jurisdiction of US law , Hence not ""born in subject to"" . But that has never been ruled on by the courts .
Last edited:
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Not so sure about that.
I think that any issue with the 14th amendment is clarified by the statements by the amendment's author (Sen. Jacob Howard). I think that this amendment has been misinterpreted since the 1960s. However, I've heard cogent arguments to the contrary. And...there is no way to count on votes by Roberts and Gorsuch. Plus, Kavanaugh seems to have pledged fealty to precedent (which may not actually exist here).
pjzwtl
.308 Win
All this order would do is redirect the policies of the executive branch to a interpretation change. Like it or not the president does have the right to run the executive branch policies. It is a open matter of interpretation of the 14th that is in question and it has never to my knowledge been ruled on in the courts just followed from administration to administration.
The separation of powers doesn’t allow congress to micro manage the policies of the executive branch just like the executive branch can’t write laws.
An executive order making an immigration policy change is not unlawfull and it is not law.
Executive orders have been nessassary and used since day 1 its the ones that attempt to smack the constitution or settled law that are the issue.
The separation of powers doesn’t allow congress to micro manage the policies of the executive branch just like the executive branch can’t write laws.
An executive order making an immigration policy change is not unlawfull and it is not law.
Executive orders have been nessassary and used since day 1 its the ones that attempt to smack the constitution or settled law that are the issue.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Submitted for your review:
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
"Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship."oc shooter
.223 Rem
like the idea but am pretty sure that it takes more than an executive order to change the constitution
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Agreed. But...birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution (as read as an originalist).
This is not changing the constitution.
It is correcting a long standing misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
There are many statements from the guys who wrote the amendment stating that foreigners and aliens are NOT included in the 14th amendment.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Like Phazer said if original intent is applied the 14th does not give birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. The order would only change the immigration policies of the executive branch via the INS
pjzwtl
.308 Win
I would add most executive orders are bs administrative nonsense nessassary for running the executive branch very few actually push the boundaries. The high number of orders in modern times are really a symptom of the bigger illness which is the obesity of the federal gov and it’s cancerous growth into areas it has no business medaling in.
Author of 14th Amendment: ‘Removes All Doubt as to What Persons Are or Are Not Citizens’
By Craig Bannister | October 31, 2018 | 3:53 PM EDT
Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) (Source: U.S. Library of Congress)
Today, debate is raging in Congress over whether or not the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil – but, the author of the amendment said its intent couldn’t be clearer.
On May 30, 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan), the author of the amendment's language, gave a speech on the Senate floorexplaining its meaning and declaring that that the amendment “settles the great question” and “removes all doubt” about citizenship:
“It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
Sen. Howard even went so far as to say that the amendment’s intent had been so thoroughly discussed that he shouldn’t even have to clarify it:
“I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.”
What’s more, the amendment is only articulating what is already established law, Sen. Howard said:
“The first amendment to section one, declaring that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said “foreigners” and “aliens” born on U.S. soil are, “of course,” not citizens:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
And, yet, today, Democrats led by House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fiercely insist the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the U.S., while President Donald Trump, his Republican supporters and constitutional scholar Mark Levin adamantly argue that it does not.
Further muddling the issue, House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) recently suggested that the 14th amendment does grant birthright citizenship, while retired Democrat icon Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) once argued that “no sane country” would do so.
By Craig Bannister | October 31, 2018 | 3:53 PM EDT
Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) (Source: U.S. Library of Congress)
Today, debate is raging in Congress over whether or not the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil – but, the author of the amendment said its intent couldn’t be clearer.
On May 30, 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan), the author of the amendment's language, gave a speech on the Senate floorexplaining its meaning and declaring that that the amendment “settles the great question” and “removes all doubt” about citizenship:
“It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
Sen. Howard even went so far as to say that the amendment’s intent had been so thoroughly discussed that he shouldn’t even have to clarify it:
“I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.”
What’s more, the amendment is only articulating what is already established law, Sen. Howard said:
“The first amendment to section one, declaring that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said “foreigners” and “aliens” born on U.S. soil are, “of course,” not citizens:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
And, yet, today, Democrats led by House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fiercely insist the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the U.S., while President Donald Trump, his Republican supporters and constitutional scholar Mark Levin adamantly argue that it does not.
Further muddling the issue, House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) recently suggested that the 14th amendment does grant birthright citizenship, while retired Democrat icon Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) once argued that “no sane country” would do so.
Now that President Trump has tossed us this tempting treat, we're going to be mighty pissed at him if POTUS fails to deliver.
I totally see a new Rally Chant:
REPEAL FOURTEEN - REPEAL FOURTEEN - REPEAL FOURTEEN
I totally see a new Rally Chant:
REPEAL FOURTEEN - REPEAL FOURTEEN - REPEAL FOURTEEN
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
Let go all in Trump .. do a EO for the 2nd too while your at it ... the authors of the 2nd amendment said its intent couldn’t be clearer also.
Wow, so many, even still don't get Trump.
This has next to nothing to do with an actual Executive Order.
This has everything to do with pissing off the Libtards, progressives and Demoncrats. He is saying these things to get a rise out of these losers.
He is nearly daring them all to take to the airwaves, go on the Sunday shows and spout how wrong it is.
He wants them all on the record saying the stupid shit they say,
This has next to nothing to do with an actual Executive Order.
This has everything to do with pissing off the Libtards, progressives and Demoncrats. He is saying these things to get a rise out of these losers.
He is nearly daring them all to take to the airwaves, go on the Sunday shows and spout how wrong it is.
He wants them all on the record saying the stupid shit they say,