Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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...

You should ask about the Edict of Caracalla. Very relevant in this case, I believe.

[Des-Bal]

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.

The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was literally just challenged.

Besides nothing, you're leaning on the judiciary to say it's unconstituional.

[Geneviev]

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.

If I'm born in California when my parents are here for work and they're not US citizens I'm an American and that shouldn't change.

[Petrasylvania]

I'm still imagining Obama trying to nullify the 2nd Amendment via executive order. He wouldn't have, because he was intelligent, he understood Constitutional law, and contrary to the propaganda pushed by the NRA paranoia machine, Obama never wanted to make gun ownership illegal and neither do the Congressional Democrats.

But really, imagine it. Obama announces his intent to nullify the 2nd Amendment, perhaps justifying it as saying "The Second Amendment says only people in well regulated militias can have guns. There are no well regulated militias anymore, therefore no one can have guns!"

I guarantee you that you would have seen a response of far-right terrorism to such a scale and extent that America has never seen, and conservative media personalities would have been calling for Obama's execution as a traitor.

As they should if such were the case.

But you're perfectly fine with Donnie repealing the 14th by executive order in the same breath. Consistency.

[Vassenor]

As they should if such were the case.

But you're perfectly fine with Donnie repealing the 14th by executive order in the same breath. Consistency.

Utterly destroying the Constitution: IOKIYAR.

[Frievolk]

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.

I mean, almost all countries in the American Continent follow an unrestricted Jus Soli citizenship law. Them, and a few other countries (like Pakistan and Tanzania)
And most countries that don't follow an unrestricted Jus Soli still employ a Jus Soli. Only two countries don't have a Jus Soli, and one of them is India.

[Petrasylvania]

Still, it is fun watching Trump become exactly the sort of autocratic dictator he accused Obama of being.

We need the light side of the Moon to show Donnie's projections.

[Uxupox]

Abolish the borders.

[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.

If I'm born in California when my parents are here for work and they're not US citizens I'm an American and that shouldn't change.

It absolutely should. Abuse of the system.

[Petrasylvania]

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.

Expecting a European GOP fanboy to understand American law. Yeah.

[Trumptonium1]

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

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.

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?

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If I'm born in California when my parents are here for work and they're not US citizens I'm an American and that shouldn't change.

It absolutely should. Abuse of the system.

...How is someone abusing the system by being born? More to the point, did they have the power to deny being born in the US and insist on being born in <insert country here>?
What if they don't even have citizenship in the country they're being deported to?

[Cedoria]

Not even the muppets on the Supreme Court would allow him to do this. All it would take is for someone to point out that the precedent would allow a future Democratic President to 'creatively reinterpret' the 2nd Amendment and it would be goodnight EO...

In all seriousness though, if he's dumb enough to actually try this, the courts will give him such a spanking that Stormy Daniels will wince at the sight.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.

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?

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

Bwhahahahahahahaha

Never has it been more obvious that you haven't the faintest clue about how law works. So, Trump has lawyers, so everything he does must be legal?

Give me a break. That reasoning is vomit-inducing in how off the mark it is. So, the party with lawyers will always win a court case, yeah?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

When Paul Ryan, Paul F**king Ryan, is saying that Trump doesn't have the power to do this, it probably means that he doesn't have the power to do this.

[Ifreann]

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

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.

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?

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

Isn't one of Trump's lawyers in prison?

[Cedoria]

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

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.

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?

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

All stupid people who go to court have lawyers. That doesn't mean their lawyers win.


As for the claim that he wouldn't be doing it if it weren't legal, he wouldn't KNOW if it was, that's the point. Trump wouldn't know what was in the Constitution if someone threw it at him.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.



Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

All stupid people who go to court have lawyers. That doesn't mean their lawyers win.


As for the claim that he wouldn't be doing it if it weren't legal, he wouldn't KNOW if it was, that's the point. Trump wouldn't know what was in the Constitution if someone threw it at him.

But, hypothetically, what if someone spanked him with it? Would that work?

[Seangoli]

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

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.

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?

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

Every president who has ever made a move by EO which was later challenged in court amd struck down 'had lawyers'. Having a legal team doesn't mean the legal team in question is giving you correct advice.


Either way, Plyler v. Doe affirmed unanimously that the 14th jurisdictional clause does in fact, apply to physical jurisdiction in the US.


But lets take the rabbit hole down further: arguing that illegal immigrants do not fall under US jurisdiction meams that the US does not have the legal authority to detain or arrest illegal immigrants. Afterall, they do not fall under US jurisdiction, and our laws thus cannot apply to them.


Either US jurisdiction is defined by its borders, or illegal immigrants do not fall under our jurisdictional authority, amd immigration law is moot.

[Ifreann]

The Supreme Court can decide if its a problem.



Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

Every president who has ever made a move by EO which was later challenged in court amd struck down 'had lawyers'. Having a legal team doesn't mean the legal team in question is giving you correct advice.


Either way, Plyler v. Doe affirmed unanimously that the 14th jurisdictional clause does in fact, apply to physical jurisdiction in the US.


But lets take the rabbit hole down further: arguing that illegal immigrants do not fall under US jurisdiction meams that the US does not have the legal authority to detain or arrest illegal immigrants. Afterall, they do not fall under US jurisdiction, and our laws thus cannot apply to them.


Either US jurisdiction is defined by its borders, or illegal immigrants do not fall under our jurisdictional authority, amd immigration law is moot.

Diplomatic immunity for illegal immigrants, what a concept.

[Cedoria]

All stupid people who go to court have lawyers. That doesn't mean their lawyers win.


As for the claim that he wouldn't be doing it if it weren't legal, he wouldn't KNOW if it was, that's the point. Trump wouldn't know what was in the Constitution if someone threw it at him.

But, hypothetically, what if someone spanked him with it? Would that work?

I suspect not. But if you're planning on paying some poor woman to find out, please warn her first:)

[Seangoli]

Trump has lawyers, if this was to be likely to be struck down he wouldn't be doing it. Clearly it's legal.

When Paul Ryan, Paul F**king Ryan, is saying that Trump doesn't have the power to do this, it probably means that he doesn't have the power to do this.

You know, I have grown a shred of respect for Ryan. As slimy as he is, he's at least consistent at applying his principles and I know full well where he stands. I disagree more often than not with his prprinciples, but I at least know what usually awful thing he wants to do in any given day. And he has shown a willingness to hold Trump by the same standards as he did Obama.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I hope this doesn't work. In part because I'm a US citizen because of this amendment and also because it's in the Constitution and should be left alone just for that reason.

Trump can BS all he wants; he can't just decree an Amendment null and void.

[Carl Hasty]

When Paul Ryan, Paul F**king Ryan, is saying that Trump doesn't have the power to do this, it probably means that he doesn't have the power to do this.

You know, I have grown a shred of respect for Ryan. As slimy as he is, he's at least consistent at applying his principles and I know full well where he stands. I disagree more often than not with his prprinciples, but I at least know what usually awful thing he wants to do in any given day. And he has shown a willingness to hold Trump by the same standards as he did Obama.

Really? It seems like he holds Trump to the same standards as Obama 1/3 times.

[Cedoria]

When Paul Ryan, Paul F**king Ryan, is saying that Trump doesn't have the power to do this, it probably means that he doesn't have the power to do this.

You know, I have grown a shred of respect for Ryan. As slimy as he is, he's at least consistent at applying his principles and I know full well where he stands. I disagree more often than not with his prprinciples, but I at least know what usually awful thing he wants to do in any given day. And he has shown a willingness to hold Trump by the same standards as he did Obama.

Until he actually has to stop it, then his resistance melts like snow before the sun.

Ryan is still a slimy bastard, and whatever meek noises he makes now likely won't be backed up by anything credible. He has to at least PRETEND an interest in not letting a demagogue run roughshod over the Republic.