Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

Parroting the SC can say the Constitution means whatever they want does not answer why you oppose repealing it the correct way. Repealing the prohibition took several months, not years.

 

Exactly

And the 14th does not specifically mention diplomats yet libs assume they are excluded

 

If abortion with all it's killing, blood, and gore can be made legal, anything can be made legal.

 

I would think there would have to be some evidence of a crime to demand a DNA test.

 

They are excluded by the "jurisdiction" clause, which was added for those who are immune from US laws,

 

The high court has that much authority

As for my reasons I gave rpthem to you

Attempting to repeal the 14th is time consunming and unnecessary

We just need to get the high court to tell us what ot means

 

Crossing a border illegally would be an apropos crime for a basis.

 

It was made legal by the 14th amendment. Now we are talking about repealing it, which would probably pass easily and quickly.

 

Unlikely. But it is a precedent for wild legal ideas.

 

That would be for the courts to decide. If you are going to say a person might not be a citizen even if he/she was born in US, then there needs to be a way to verify if he/she qualifies. In this case Melania was not a citizen at the time of Barrons birth, but Donald Trump was. So, they would just need a DNA test to verify that he is the biological father. If he can prove that he is, then Barron is a citizen, and if not, then he is not a citizen (according to proposed rules)

 

Getting it to the SC would take more time than repealing it.

 

What a clever (and evil) argument

But if libs will agree to take dna samples of every illegal alien and child on welfare some good might come out of it

 

Not so

The SC could rule during the current judicial year

 

You certainly have pleasant tone about your posts, so allow me to echo it.

I have nothing against amending the Constitution. There is a process for doing so, after all. But I'm also not stupid enough to believe in this day and age that process could take place in a timely enough manner, or even successfully, to address current issues. I'm also not so stupid as to ignore the reason the SCOTUS exists. A challenge to the "subject to" provision would not be outside their purview.

As to Heritage Foundation "nonsense", the debate over the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been going on long before the Heritage Foundation was founded, so that liberal/progressive talking point echo chamber bullshit is meaningless.

Since you refuse to touch what the authors of the 14th Amendment wrote about the logic and meaning of the words they chose, let me ask you two questions.

Would it be true that everyone living in the United States, regardless of where they were from, was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted, whether it was stated or not?

If your answer is yes, then why would the authors of the 14th Amendment have to remind people of something that goes without saying?

 

A change to this portion:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a)  a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Would be illegal because the constitution says this:
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," and was meant to override the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied African Americans citizenship.

Slick huh?

 

It would never get past Judge Judy to even make it to Hot Bench.

 

If the SC decides to take a case on an expedited basis before it makes its way through the lower courts, nobody can stop them.

 

I can't see this EO being applied in the manner you suggest. Rather it would likely be used to stop the anchor baby tourism and things of that nature.

 

As I explained, there are three groups of people, like those with diplomatic immunity, who are not under US jurisdiction. The founders wisely added the exception for them by the "jurisdiction" clause. Other that those groups "all people" are under US jurisdiction.

 

Im not the one taking a copy and paste from the internet and presenting it as something stated by the original drafters.

 

It would open a can of worms. Millions of people like Trump would have to jump through the hoops to prove their kids are citizens and not illegals subject for deportation.

 

In that case we don't have much to look at.

 

So your argument is that there were so many foreign diplomats living in the US, an out clause was inserted in the Constitution specifically for the purpose of addressing any issue with them.

That line of BS is going to be a tough sell....

 

Your words, not mine. Those three groups of people are not in US jurisdiction, so the clause removed the loophole for them. Besides, I am not selling anything. I am cool with agreeing to disagree. Call is BS if you wish, but it is what it is.

 

Of course. But the trumpers are employing the trump Ian tactic of repeating nonsense in the face of truth. They seem to believe that gives them some sort of real world argument.

The Constitution isn’t amended for short term purposes (ie making sure that only the slaves and children of slavesare citizens) and for specific purposes (ditto) unless it’s specifically spelled out with limiting language.

These people are willfully ignorant.