re: Primer on US Citizenship, with an Emphasis upon Birthright Citizenship

Seriously, I tend to agree with you about the courts limiting any challenge to the narrower question.

I also believe this exposes the complete lack of will by Congressional Republicans to do anything about it, which is why I sort of hope they lose the House. They are riding the Trump coattails and expecting people to vote for them, when they have no intention of furthering Trump's agenda.

It wouldn't break my heart one bit to see Pete Sessions sent packing, for instance. Trump is temporary (it pains me to say), so it's best to burn it to the ground as quickly as possible, then pick up the pieces.

Jacob Howard, one of the principle architects of this amendment was pretty clear in it’s original intent:

..“Every person born within the limits of the United State, 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 person”

It really doesn’t get much clearer than that. Part of what SCOTUS is supposed to do is looking into the original intent of the law. They refer to the Federalist Papers frequently as an example to dig for the intent of certain laws.

Should this go to SCOUTUS and they rule in favor of “Anchor Babies” being unconstitutional, Congress and the President would have to do some type of Grandfather clause to recognize everyone in the past that benefited from this. They can have their citizenship revoked.

Save some of us some research, and tell us what is your opinion on whether or not a baby who squirts out through the birth canal of a foreign national that is here ILLEGALY should be granted citizenship or not?

Any sane rational person of course says NOT.

Another point, even iF POTUS gets shot down by SCOTUS, and obviously the prog filth would prevent either house or senate from a 2/3rds vote for a Constitutional Amendment, there is STILL the option of promoting a 2/3rds State legislature majority calling for a constitutional convention....that is a real possibility, even in today's climate.... Look at all the Red in Electoral maps, and number of States that are red....except for a few coastal outliers, over two thirds of state legislatures can make it happen, and the population advantage of NY, CA, etc wouldn't make a difference.

quote:

---

Fascinating. Please expound upon how this assertion relates to my post.

---

Sure. You assert that an EO would be illegal. Your words:

quote:

---

SCOTUS would likely rule on the much narrower issue of whether the President can issue an executive order in direct contradiction of an existing statue.

---

The President is over the executive branch. The USCIS is a part of the Dept of Homeland Security.

An EO is a presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty. That's legally speaking.

The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution.


He has the right to interpret federal statute and direct the executive to enforce and how to enforce the statute.


It's the job of the SCOTUS to agree with or push back against that interpretation. They can not agree with him and the content of the EO be wrong. They can not disagree with him and the content that is wrong not be addressed.

Yes, it is within the purview of the executive branch to enforce the law. If the executive branch issues and executive order which is directly contrary to the language of the statute he is statutorily bound to enforce, the court will overturn that executive order. This is not complex stuff.

You sure seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands.

quote:

---

Should this go to SCOUTUS and they rule in favor of “Anchor Babies” being unconstitutional, Congress and the President would have to do some type of Grandfather clause to recognize everyone in the past that benefited from this. They can have their citizenship revoked.

---

The SCOTUS is unlikely to decide that anchor babies are unconstitutional, but they may decide that they aren’t afforded the automatic constitutional right, and can be excluded or included under federal law.

quote:

---

regarding birthright citizenship, there is a statute on the books

---

Link?

quote:

---

Every person born within the limits of the United State, 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 person”

---

Looks pretty clear cut to me(for SCOTUS).

We have just had five dry days after two weeks of rain. Cut, tedded, raked and baled in that window.

The storms that are blowing across the state are supposed to hit here at about 5 PM. I’m trying to get all the hay off the field before the rain arrives. I have already moved almost 100 round bales. I will not get them all moved, because I still have more than 50 on the field.