Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Internationalist Bastard]

Either way I think ima go learn spainish in case someone decides I’m not a citizen anymore

Why would anyone do that?

Well I’m one of those monster anchor babies

[Dahon]

Why would anyone do that?

Well I’m one of those monster anchor babies

The old me would've snarked away. This me... I'd like to snark, yet I feel... agape.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well I’m one of those monster anchor babies

The old me would've snarked away. This me... I'd like to snark, yet I feel... agape.

It’s almost like this this has huge implications that need to be discussed

[Dahon]

The old me would've snarked away. This me... I'd like to snark, yet I feel... agape.

It’s almost like this this has huge implications that need to be discussed

I haven't been in good form for quite a while now. Now and then I get glimpses of the old happy me, but this year and last year this year and two years ago this year -- it's all been the same long year -- it's been -- stressful -- very stressful -- living under tyrants --

[Blackledge]

So why isn't this in the MAGAthread?

The 14th amendment being nullified is its own topic.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Graham is already drafting legislation to let him do exactly that.

37% of the nation believes in abolishing birthright citizenship, because that is the caliber of voter the GOP has cultivated this past half century. Why wouldn't they vote for such a measure?

That means 72% don't want to.

A majority of states have to ratify the change in the constustion.

There is no way that this can happen.

[Page]

It’s almost like this this has huge implications that need to be discussed

I haven't been in good form for quite a while now. Now and then I get glimpses of the old happy me, but this year and last year this year and two years ago this year -- it's all been the same long year -- it's been -- stressful -- very stressful -- living under tyrants --

Seeing despicable people rise to power and bigots operating with impunity has my mind consumed by contempt. I have thought for a few years that there are two parts of me: A pacifist hippie who wants to love everyone and be content with things, and an anarchist fueled by anger who cannot be content until justice is rendered. The anarchist is winning lately.

[Page]

37% of the nation believes in abolishing birthright citizenship, because that is the caliber of voter the GOP has cultivated this past half century. Why wouldn't they vote for such a measure?

That means 72% don't want to.

A majority of states have to ratify the change in the constustion.

There is no way that this can happen.

I don't think it's possible that a change to the 14th Amendment will be ratified by 3/4 states, but I think it's possible Trump gets away with subverting the Constitution (again) with the help of his lapdog Kavanaugh. In other words, birthright citizenship will still be constitutionally mandated, but the government may start acting as if the 14th amendment doesn't exist with no one to stop them.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's just red meat for his deplorable base. Gets them animated and talking about something other than the fact that the Republicans are lying through their teeth about their pledge to protect those with preexisting conditions from being denied health care, that they are about as popular with female voters right now as Jack the Ripper, that he's rapidly losing support in many midwestern and western farming communities that are particularly hard hit by his idiotic trade wars, or....you know...the campaign people of his being convicted of serious crimes or pleading guilty after making deals with the prosecutors. Gotta keep his favorite "poorly educated" supporters (his words) distracted with hatred of and fear of brown people.

This is a pretty major issue since immigration brings in a fat Democratic base. California goes so far as to offer illegals sanctuary in order to harvest their children. This issue is way more important than 95% of everything else widely talked about.

Fucking what

[Conserative Morality]

That means 72% don't want to.

So? (Also, it's 63%)

68% of voters want stricter gun control laws, yet we all know that's not happening. Vocal minorities dictate the position of their parties, and parties determine policy.

[Internationalist Bastard]

37% of the nation believes in abolishing birthright citizenship, because that is the caliber of voter the GOP has cultivated this past half century. Why wouldn't they vote for such a measure?

That means 72% don't want to.

A majority of states have to ratify the change in the constustion.

There is no way that this can happen.

I’m just outraged it’s wven being considered

[Myrensis]

This is a pretty major issue since immigration brings in a fat Democratic base. California goes so far as to offer illegals sanctuary in order to harvest their children. This issue is way more important than 95% of everything else widely talked about.

Fucking what

It means we're going for the long con and bringing in illegals so that 18 years from now (well really, given the unreliability of the youth vote, more like 30+ years from now) we can get their kids votes!

Which is at least a step above the conspiracy theory ranting about how we bring illegals in to vote right now, in a nationwide effort involving millions of people that we've nevertheless managed completely conceal any evidence of for decades.

[Frievolk]

37% of the nation believes in abolishing birthright citizenship, because that is the caliber of voter the GOP has cultivated this past half century. Why wouldn't they vote for such a measure?

That means 72% don't want to.

A majority of states have to ratify the change in the constustion.

There is no way that this can happen.

I mean it can if you put those 37% population strategically. Most States have small populations and all.

[Des-Bal]

So the idea here is probably to puff out his chest and strike a pose before mid terms and then exhale right around the time the resistance becomes insurmountable. The constitution is pretty straightforward on the issue.

As to the actual suggestion I don't know that I'd be super upset to see birthright citizenship go, I just don't really see the logic of it.

[Trumptonium1]

Good, America can finally join the rest of the planet and base citizenship on blood not soil.

If I am born on a train from Mexico to Canada that happens to be in Minnesota, I am not American. It's as nonsensical as saying that someone who gives birth on a plane from Australia to the UK over India is actually Indian. Absolutely moronic system.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Good, America can finally join the rest of the planet and base citizenship on blood not soil.

If I am born on a train from Mexico to Canada that happens to be in Minnesota, I am not American. It's as nonsensical as saying that someone who gives birth on a plane from Australia to the UK over India is actually Indian. Absolutely moronic system.

Are you willing to have the constitution violated over babies being born in trains from Canada to Mexico?

[The Grims]

Good, America can finally join the rest of the planet and base citizenship on blood not soil.

If I am born on a train from Mexico to Canada that happens to be in Minnesota, I am not American. It's as nonsensical as saying that someone who gives birth on a plane from Australia to the UK over India is actually Indian. Absolutely moronic system.

Agreed. But changing the constitution this way is a bit iffy.

Imagine that the next president opposes guns and want to nullify that.

[Des-Bal]

Good, America can finally join the rest of the planet and base citizenship on blood not soil.

If I am born on a train from Mexico to Canada that happens to be in Minnesota, I am not American. It's as nonsensical as saying that someone who gives birth on a plane from Australia to the UK over India is actually Indian. Absolutely moronic system.

Maybe take your examples from Europe because Canada, Mexico, and just about every country in the Americas bases it on soil. It's a very American principle.

[Trumptonium1]

Good, America can finally join the rest of the planet and base citizenship on blood not soil.

If I am born on a train from Mexico to Canada that happens to be in Minnesota, I am not American. It's as nonsensical as saying that someone who gives birth on a plane from Australia to the UK over India is actually Indian. Absolutely moronic system.

Are you willing to have the constitution violated over babies being born in trains from Canada to Mexico?

How is the constitution being violated when it is being legally nullified?

I'm sure Donald could get it through as an actual amendment anyway when the GOP gets 60 seats in the midterms and or through a Convention of states, but this is good enough. The constitution wasn't intended this way.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Are you willing to have the constitution violated over babies being born in trains from Canada to Mexico?

How is the constitution being violated when it is being legally nullified?

I'm sure Donald could get it through as an actual amendment anyway when the GOP gets 60 seats in the midterms and or through a Convention of states, but this is good enough. The constitution wasn't intended this way.

It’s the legality of it that’s the problem
This is what people complained about Obama doing only directly changing an amendment rather than adding restrictions

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Are you willing to have the constitution violated over babies being born in trains from Canada to Mexico?

How is the constitution being violated when it is being legally nullified?

I'm sure Donald could get it through as an actual amendment anyway when the GOP gets 60 seats in the midterms and or through a Convention of states, but this is good enough. The constitution wasn't intended this way.

Legal nullification of the US constitution is not a thing. Only Congress can amend the constitution. An executive order cannot alter the constitution.

The GOP is not going to get 60 seats, that is outlandish, but a topic for another thread.

The constitution clearly was intended this way. Intention cannot supersede the grammatical interpretation of a provision that is as clear as the 14th Amendment. I refer you to the posts I made above about legal interpretation.

Shall we just stop it here, Trumptonium? We both know how this is going to go. You will defend the president no matter what, you will call my positions insane and deranged despite being in line with 150 years of interpretation, and in the end you are going to declare yourself the victor. Let's just stop that here, okay?

[Des-Bal]

Legal nullification of the US constitution is not a thing. Only Congress can amend the constitution. An executive order cannot alter the constitution.

The GOP is not going to get 60 seats, that is outlandish, but a topic for another thread.

The constitution clearly was intended this way. Intention cannot supersede the grammatical interpretation of a provision that is as clear as the 14th Amendment. I refer you to the posts I made above about legal interpretation.

Shall we just stop it here, Trumptonium? We both know how this is going to go. You will defend the president no matter what, you will call my positions insane and deranged despite being in line with 150 years of interpretation, and in the end you are going to declare yourself the victor. Let's just stop that here, okay?

Uh really? Because "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean much and "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" apparently means whatever would be convenient at the time. There's a long precedent of stretching grammatical interpretation for the constitution.

[Taliostia]

The Supreme Court of the United States will block Trump's attempts to rewrite the Constitution. Congress won't allow this either.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Legal nullification of the US constitution is not a thing. Only Congress can amend the constitution. An executive order cannot alter the constitution.

The GOP is not going to get 60 seats, that is outlandish, but a topic for another thread.

The constitution clearly was intended this way. Intention cannot supersede the grammatical interpretation of a provision that is as clear as the 14th Amendment. I refer you to the posts I made above about legal interpretation.

Shall we just stop it here, Trumptonium? We both know how this is going to go. You will defend the president no matter what, you will call my positions insane and deranged despite being in line with 150 years of interpretation, and in the end you are going to declare yourself the victor. Let's just stop that here, okay?

Uh really? Because "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean much and "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" apparently means whatever would be convenient at the time. There's a long precedent of stretching grammatical interpretation for the constitution.

Yeah, there is 'stretching', but then there is 'violating'. Some provisions are abundantly clear, and do not require teleological interpretation in order to be clear.

The term 'shall not be infringed' requires an interpretation on what exactly an infringement is. That requires teleology. What exactly entails 'regulation', 'foreign nations, and 'Indian tribes' requires teleology. However, the 14th Amendment is abundantly clear.

Besides, the interpretation of the constitution is the power of the judiciary, not the president.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The Supreme Court of the United States will block Trump's attempts to rewrite the Constitution. Congress won't allow this either.

If you had said that six months ago, I would have believed it without question. Now, though, I'm not so sure.

Currently, I'm in Latin class. A big part of that is studying the Roman Empire. Currently, I'm noticing some similarities...