Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[NS Miami Shores]

Trump can't nullify the 14th Amendment, and he knows it. He just thinks lying will get him some votes.

He probably will. It's not lying. He knows that people want him to take away my citizenship and he will.

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

I would support that option 100 % and so would President Trump from statements he has made in the past.

If President Trump could accomplish that one way or the other it would be his greatest and awesome legacy, it would help future American Presidents both Republican, Democrats, Libertarians or whatevers with their immigration powers.

And we would not need The Great Wall of Trump.

But I guess a future US Supreme Court with a Democrat majority might be able to reverse it again, and here we go again, lol.

Yes lol is my favorite expression and I use it a lot lol, and my favorite lol, I'm having a lol attack is another expression most of the time not an actual lol attack.

[Valgora]

He probably will. It's not lying. He knows that people want him to take away my citizenship and he will.

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the prahase subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

I would support that option 100 % and so would President Trump from statements he has made in the past.

If President Trump could accomplish that one way or the other it would be his greatest and awesome legacy, it would help future American Presidents both Republican, Democrats, Libertarians or whatevers with their immigration powers.

We would not need The Great Wall of Trump.

But I guess a future US Supreme Court with a Democrat majority might be able to reverse it again, and here we go again, lol.

Yes lol is my favorite expression and I use it a lot lol, and my favorite lol, I'm having a lol attack is another expression most of the time not an actual lol attack.

I don't think that a Conservative majority Supreme Court would want to go against precedent and overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
And a future US Supreme Court could also reverse it due to the 14th Amendment's wording when it will inevitably come to the Supreme Court.
Another amendment would be required in order to actually change it without worrying about a future SCOTUS.

Also, we don't need a border wall anyways, whether or not we continue to have Birthright Citizenship.

[San Lumen]

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the prahase subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

I would support that option 100 % and so would President Trump from statements he has made in the past.

If President Trump could accomplish that one way or the other it would be his greatest and awesome legacy, it would help future American Presidents both Republican, Democrats, Libertarians or whatevers with their immigration powers.

We would not need The Great Wall of Trump.

But I guess a future US Supreme Court with a Democrat majority might be able to reverse it again, and here we go again, lol.

Yes lol is my favorite expression and I use it a lot lol, and my favorite lol, I'm having a lol attack is another expression most of the time not an actual lol attack.

I don't think that a Conservative majority Supreme Court would want to go against precedent and overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
And a future US Supreme Court could also reverse it due to the 14th Amendment's wording when it will inevitably come to the Supreme Court.
Another amendment would be required in order to actually change it without worrying about a future SCOTUS.

Also, we don't need a border wall anyways, whether or not we continue to have Birthright Citizenship.

With this current court I cannot say for certain but i think its likely they would strike down any such executive order.

[NS Miami Shores]

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the prahase subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

I would support that option 100 % and so would President Trump from statements he has made in the past.

If President Trump could accomplish that one way or the other it would be his greatest and awesome legacy, it would help future American Presidents both Republican, Democrats, Libertarians or whatevers with their immigration powers.

We would not need The Great Wall of Trump.

But I guess a future US Supreme Court with a Democrat majority might be able to reverse it again, and here we go again, lol.

Yes lol is my favorite expression and I use it a lot lol, and my favorite lol, I'm having a lol attack is another expression most of the time not an actual lol attack.

I don't think that a Conservative majority Supreme Court would want to go against precedent and overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
And a future US Supreme Court could also reverse it due to the 14th Amendment's wording when it will inevitably come to the Supreme Court.
Another amendment would be required in order to actually change it without worrying about a future SCOTUS.

Also, we don't need a border wall anyways, whether or not we continue to have Birthright Citizenship.

Thank you Valgora for that very informative post, I will study on it and do research on it, and yes we do need The Great Wall of Trump and I say it figuratively, we need a real zero tolerance anti illegal immigration policy of automatic deportations of illegals, with all the rights respected of legal immigrants, legal residents, legal citizens and legal foreign nationals, Democrats in Congress should be helping Republicans on the issue not opposing them.

[Ifreann]

He probably will. It's not lying. He knows that people want him to take away my citizenship and he will.

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

No they can't.

[NS Miami Shores]

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

No they can't.

I think they can declare it not to mean Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, and apply it for future ones due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

Please I never said that you all cant tell us whatever you want to tell us on your posts, I have always stated that I will never tell any fellow nation state r what to post, what not to post and how to post it.

What I meant is we should not be told that we are 100 % wrong on our different political views on any issues and you all are right 100 %, and vice versa including this one.

I never tell any fellow nation stater that they are wrong (100%) and I am right (100%) that is wrong for me to do to any fellow nation staters on any issues including Cuba my pet issue on NS, of which I am an expert on for obvious reasons.

Just accept the other fellow nation stater s views and post your own, and leave at that like I do.

And it would be awesome if our OP Thread Host made a Pro and Con Poll, but he does not have to create it because I demand it, I do not demand it, I am suggesting it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No they can't.

I think they can declare it not to mean Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, and apply it for future ones due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

Please I never said that you all cant tell us whatever you want to tell us on your posts, I have always stated that I will never tell any fellow nation state r what to post, what not to post and how to post it.

What I meant is we should not be told that we are 100 % wrong on our different political views on any issues and you all are right 100 %, and vice versa including this one.

I never tell any fellow nation stater that they are wrong (100%) and I am right (100%) that is wrong for me to do to any fellow nation staters on any issues including Cuba my pet issue on NS, of which I am an expert on for obvious reasons.

Just accept the other fellow nation stater s views and post your own, and leave at that like I do.

And it would be awesome if our OP Thread Host made a Pro and Con Poll, but he does not have to create it because I demand it, I do not demand it, I am suggesting it.

That is nice and all, but... You can be wrong in matters of law. Law isn't a debate on what 'ought to be'. A legal discussion is a discussion on what is, and you can very much be wrong with that. Just because opinions should be respected does not mean that all opinions are valid, especially regarding matters that are not so much subject to opinions.

In this case, with the given jurisprudence, the Supreme Court cannot reasonably redefine what 'jurisdiction' means. Reinterpreting 'jurisdiction' to mean something that is not even close to the meaning of the word, which would be required, would be such an obvious political scheme that the Supreme Court would lose all its trust with the American people.

[Thaumarc]

Or reinforce the original intent of the 14th amendment.

[NS Miami Shores]

I think they can declare it not to mean Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, and apply it for future ones due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

Please I never said that you all cant tell us whatever you want to tell us on your posts, I have always stated that I will never tell any fellow nation state r what to post, what not to post and how to post it.

What I meant is we should not be told that we are 100 % wrong on our different political views on any issues and you all are right 100 %, and vice versa including this one.

I never tell any fellow nation stater that they are wrong (100%) and I am right (100%) that is wrong for me to do to any fellow nation staters on any issues including Cuba my pet issue on NS, of which I am an expert on for obvious reasons.

Just accept the other fellow nation stater s views and post your own, and leave at that like I do.

And it would be awesome if our OP Thread Host made a Pro and Con Poll, but he does not have to create it because I demand it, I do not demand it, I am suggesting it.

That is nice and all, but... You can be wrong in matters of law. Law isn't a debate on what 'ought to be'. A legal discussion is a discussion on what is, and you can very much be wrong with that. Just because opinions should be respected does not mean that all opinions are valid, especially regarding matters that are not so much subject to opinions.

In this case, with the given jurisprudence, the Supreme Court cannot reasonably redefine what 'jurisdiction' means. Reinterpreting 'jurisdiction' to mean something that is not even close to the meaning of the word, which would be required, would be such an obvious political scheme that the Supreme Court would lose all its trust with the American people.

Thank you, Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States, I will study your comments, and informative post.

[Vassenor]

Or reinforce the original intent of the 14th amendment.

Which was?

[Valgora]

Or reinforce the original intent of the 14th amendment.

"However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion."
Wikipedia

[Seangoli]

President Trump is very serious about finding a way to end Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, like Trumptonium1 says no one is talking about deporting american citizens.

If by a miracle due to the US Supreme Court having a majority of conservatives by 1, declared the prahase subject to the jurisdiction, of the USA as not granting Birth Right Citizenship to persons born on US soil from illegal parents, they can also require it to be from this date on, or apply it for future persons born on us soil from illegal parents, due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

I would support that option 100 % and so would President Trump from statements he has made in the past.

If President Trump could accomplish that one way or the other it would be his greatest and awesome legacy, it would help future American Presidents both Republican, Democrats, Libertarians or whatevers with their immigration powers.

We would not need The Great Wall of Trump.

But I guess a future US Supreme Court with a Democrat majority might be able to reverse it again, and here we go again, lol.

Yes lol is my favorite expression and I use it a lot lol, and my favorite lol, I'm having a lol attack is another expression most of the time not an actual lol attack.

I don't think that a Conservative majority Supreme Court would want to go against precedent and overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
And a future US Supreme Court could also reverse it due to the 14th Amendment's wording when it will inevitably come to the Supreme Court.
Another amendment would be required in order to actually change it without worrying about a future SCOTUS.

Also, we don't need a border wall anyways, whether or not we continue to have Birthright Citizenship.

Thomas certainly could, as he is seated deeply in Original Intent philosophy and does not consider precedent as sacrosanct. He could be willing to accept arguments om the intent of the Amendment beyond kust plain text ruling.

Alito and Gorsuch could be swayed by arguments that instead of overturning US v Wong Kim Ark, woukd instead rule on limiting it in scope. Rather than coming to a full overruling or major ruling on jurisdiction, they limit the scope to be narrowly defined.

Kavanaugh I have no idea, but lets throw him in.

That leaves the liberal wing and Roberts. And there is no way in hell Roberts is going to throw out precedent, nor will he particularly enjoy further politicization of the court.

[Ifreann]

No they can't.

I think they can declare it not to mean Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents,

They could do that, yes.

and apply it for future ones due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

They cannot make these sorts of political compromises that you are suggesting. They are a court. They rule on the law.

[NS Miami Shores]

I think they can declare it not to mean Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents,

They could do that, yes.

and apply it for future ones due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

They cannot make these sorts of political compromises that you are suggesting. They are a court. They rule on the law.

Ifrean thank you for this post, I am not suggesting a political compromise, I admit I used poor language political compromise, I still think they can make any law on any issue from this date forward, or retroactive from a certain date, thank you for this post my friend.

[Ifreann]

They could do that, yes.

They cannot make these sorts of political compromises that you are suggesting. They are a court. They rule on the law.

Ifrean thank you for this post, I am not suggestin a political compromise, I admit I used poor language political compromise, I still think they can make any law on any issue from this date forward, or retroactive from a certain date, thank you for this post my friend.

You are wrong, they cannot do that. The court does not make laws. They make findings as to what is or is not legal.

[Neutraligon]

Ifrean thank you for this post, I am not suggestin a political compromise, I admit I used poor language political compromise, I still think they can make any law on any issue from this date forward, or retroactive from a certain date, thank you for this post my friend.

You are wrong, they cannot do that. The court does not make laws. They make findings as to what is or is not legal.

Article 1 section 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Or reinforce the original intent of the 14th amendment.

Current law is the original intent. There is no need to change anything.

There is a basic misunderstanding about 'original intent' in the US. It does not mean that the US needs to legislate as if it were the Civil War. It just means that the articles should be read to achieve their intended purpose. For example, the 14th Amendment also says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If we read this Amendment with regards to LGBT people, original intent can be used in two ways. One could say that the original framers never wanted to legalise equal marriage, because at the time that was not an issue, and most of the drafters were homophobes. However, there is another intent: the broader intent to forbid discrimination of any kind. The framers sought to end unequal treatments between citizens of the US, and in that sense, reading the 14th Amendment as allowing equal marriage is also in accordance with original intent.

See, reading an article with original intent does not mean you have to interpret it as if it were the year in which the article was accepted. That is not what is meant with 'original intent'. You have to look at the effect which an article was supposed to achieve, and see how that can be applied in a modern context.

[Neutraligon]

Or reinforce the original intent of the 14th amendment.

Current law is the original intent. There is no need to change anything.

There is a basic misunderstanding about 'original intent' in the US. It does not mean that the US needs to legislate as if it were the Civil War. It just means that the articles should be read to achieve their intended purpose. For example, the 14th Amendment also says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If we read this Amendment with regards to LGBT people, original intent can be used in two ways. One could say that the original framers never wanted to legalise equal marriage, because at the time that was not an issue, and most of the drafters were homophobes. However, there is another intent: the broader intent to forbid discrimination of any kind. The framers sought to end unequal treatments between citizens of the US, and in that sense, reading the 14th Amendment as allowing equal marriage is also in accordance with original intent.

See, reading an article with original intent does not mean you have to interpret it as if it were the year in which the article was accepted. That is not what is meant with 'original intent'. You have to look at the effect which an article was supposed to achieve, and see how that can be applied in a modern context.

Otherwise we could point out that the authors did not know about modern guns and so the second amendment can only mean guns that where around at the time the Constitution was signed into law.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I too am legal, an American citizen, and served in the military
And yet I’ve been told I need to be deported for being born inconvently

i'm not sure if you're insinuating i am personally answerable for the wide range of views of people on the right, or if you deliberately are misconstruing what I said, but if you read what I said (or what anybody else said) nobody mentioned deporting american citizens.

illegals yes. if they have a child, i'd say let the child make a decision to stay or go together. if there's a judicial issue, then the court can rule on it again without ginsburg this time.

Actually I was told to be deported earlier
The point is that not allowing people to be citizens because of birth circumstances denies potential citizens who could help the nation

[Salandriagado]

He probably will. It's not lying. He knows that people want him to take away my citizenship and he will.

He is lying. He can't do away with jus soli with an executive order, and nobody even told him he could.

He's not necessarily lying. He might genuinely believe it, in which case he's just stupid beyond all belief. That's also a possibility.

[Trumptonium1]

I think they can declare it not to mean Birth Right Citizenship for persons born on US Soil from illegal parents, and apply it for future ones due to the fact that millions have been granted Birth Right Citizenship in the past and current time.

Please I never said that you all cant tell us whatever you want to tell us on your posts, I have always stated that I will never tell any fellow nation state r what to post, what not to post and how to post it.

What I meant is we should not be told that we are 100 % wrong on our different political views on any issues and you all are right 100 %, and vice versa including this one.

I never tell any fellow nation stater that they are wrong (100%) and I am right (100%) that is wrong for me to do to any fellow nation staters on any issues including Cuba my pet issue on NS, of which I am an expert on for obvious reasons.

Just accept the other fellow nation stater s views and post your own, and leave at that like I do.

And it would be awesome if our OP Thread Host made a Pro and Con Poll, but he does not have to create it because I demand it, I do not demand it, I am suggesting it.

That is nice and all, but... You can be wrong in matters of law. Law isn't a debate on what 'ought to be'. A legal discussion is a discussion on what is, and you can very much be wrong with that. Just because opinions should be respected does not mean that all opinions are valid, especially regarding matters that are not so much subject to opinions.

In this case, with the given jurisprudence, the Supreme Court cannot reasonably redefine what 'jurisdiction' means. Reinterpreting 'jurisdiction' to mean something that is not even close to the meaning of the word, which would be required, would be such an obvious political scheme that the Supreme Court would lose all its trust with the American people.

the supreme court is there to be activist and organically reinterpret the original meaning to account for modern values, remember? all that living document claptrap

modern values have clearly changed and 1870 meaning of belonging no longer applies

if FDR can stack the court to push his way, so can Trump

[Trumptonium1]

i'm not sure if you're insinuating i am personally answerable for the wide range of views of people on the right, or if you deliberately are misconstruing what I said, but if you read what I said (or what anybody else said) nobody mentioned deporting american citizens.

illegals yes. if they have a child, i'd say let the child make a decision to stay or go together. if there's a judicial issue, then the court can rule on it again without ginsburg this time.

Actually I was told to be deported earlier
The point is that not allowing people to be citizens because of birth circumstances denies potential citizens who could help the nation

All I see is people saying illegals shouldn't be citizens. Nobody here tried to deny legal immigrants becoming 'potential citizens who could help the nation'

But the US isn't - and shouldn't be - a charity, and it's not the job of the American people to provide for the rest of the planet's woes. It is right that protection from persecution should be available, but none of these people are escaping persecution any more than African invaders are escaping persecution in Croatia and France by going to Germany and the UK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - this is one of those. Although a very large section of those supporting this sort of immigration don't have good intentions at all, such as San Lumen, whose reasoning for all of this is support of replacement of the white population as he admitted.

Every sovereign country should be able to choose its own immigration policy, including the US. Unless it belongs to billionaires rather than the people.

[Page]

Actually I was told to be deported earlier
The point is that not allowing people to be citizens because of birth circumstances denies potential citizens who could help the nation

All I see is people saying illegals shouldn't be citizens. Nobody here tried to deny legal immigrants becoming 'potential citizens who could help the nation'

But the US isn't - and shouldn't be - a charity, and it's not the job of the American people to provide for the rest of the planet's woes. It is right that protection from persecution should be available, but none of these people are escaping persecution any more than African invaders are escaping persecution in Croatia and France by going to Germany and the UK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - this is one of those. Although a very large section of those supporting this sort of immigration don't have good intentions at all, such as San Lumen, whose reasoning for all of this is support of replacement of the white population as he admitted.

Every sovereign country should be able to choose its own immigration policy, including the US. Unless it belongs to billionaires rather than the people.

The US belonging to billionaires is the reason the right-wing has won so many policy victories.

[Ifreann]

He is lying. He can't do away with jus soli with an executive order, and nobody even told him he could.

He's not necessarily lying. He might genuinely believe it, in which case he's just stupid beyond all belief. That's also a possibility.

That's true, but he's certainly lying when he says shit like "They are saying I could do it with an executive order". Nobody said anything of the sort to him except the voices in his head.

[Kubumba Tribe]

> not illegal
> came before fatherland entered EU
> british citizen
> in the RAF uas

nope

I too am legal, an American citizen, and served in the military
And yet I’ve been told I need to be deported for being born inconvently

Same!
#LegalButStillIllegalGang

lol yeah all those mythical illegal immigrants from central america

They aren't illegal.

islamic Muslim terrorists

Ftfy

Please I never said that you all cant tell us whatever you want to tell us on your posts, I have always stated that I will never tell any fellow nation state r what to post, what not to post and how to post it.

What I meant is we should not be told that we are 100 % wrong on our different political views on any issues and you all are right 100 %, and vice versa including this one.

I never tell any fellow nation stater that they are wrong (100%) and I am right (100%) that is wrong for me to do to any fellow nation staters on any issues including Cuba my pet issue on NS, of which I am an expert on for obvious reasons.

What are you talking about???

Just accept the other fellow nation stater s views and post your own, and leave at that like I do.

You don't do that tho, you do the same thing that every other NSGer does: debate.