- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump trying to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:54 am to PolarTiger
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:54 am to PolarTiger
quote:
Why is he doing this shite before midterms?
Why not?
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:55 am to BRTigerDad
This is going a bit far, but I think it's Art of the Deal stuff in order to start with an extreme position, then get to a compromise.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:56 am to BRTigerDad
"Clearly unconstitutional."
I am not sure this is really so clear. A statute could pass constitutional muster. I am not sure this is so clear.
I am not sure this is really so clear. A statute could pass constitutional muster. I am not sure this is so clear.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:58 am to jb4
quote:
Anybody for birthright citizenship is crazy
I agree. Thats why half a dozen other countries have overturned their birthright citizenship laws in the last 30 years. Someone should tap into the arguments they used to successfully argue the case.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A late 19th century case, US v Ark held that babies born to legal residents on US soil should be citizens. That's about it.
Yeah I just did some quick reading and it appears this whole thing has never really been addressed particularly pertaining to illegal residents.
Trump is doing this just to send it to SCOTUS and let them decide. There’s no coincidence this happened right after Kavanaugh was sworn in.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:00 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Because it's part of our fricking Constitution you goddamn toothless frick.
Thats nice. So was Prohibition. Should it have been overturned or ..nah?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:00 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
BRTigerDad
Everything you post makes you out to be a creepy NPC. Do you have any original thoughts or are you only programmed to repeat leftist talking points?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:00 am to jb4
quote:
Let the Supreme Court rule on the issue. The phrase of the 14th amendment can be interpreted quite differently.
Agreed.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:00 am to BRTigerDad
quote:Seems he got you worked up in the process.
And he's trying to get his base worked up before election day. Looks like it is working.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:01 am to BRTigerDad
He has a pen like Obama had
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:02 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
Now please read the entire sentence where you found that phrase, and then please note that our "well regulated Militia" has not been infringed -- our National Guard continues to thrive and has not been infringed.
The National Guard is still the military of the US Government.
A MILITIA is a civilian force, by definition
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:03 am to kingbob
quote:
hint: that means people who are citizens of other nations.
Like a child born of two parents who are citizens of another nation?
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:04 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:03 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
Trump is just trying to provide a distraction from the MAGAbomber, the Nazi who shot up the synagogue, and the racist who recently killed some blacks.
You're brainwashed.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:04 am to celltech1981
quote:It's not amending the constitution. It's clarifying it's language.
Amending the constitution through presidential executive order is dangerous whether or not you agree with the order. Yall are truly a bunch of short sighted morons if yall think that this is a good idea. There wont be a Republican president forever. Trump didnt start this trend but he is damn sure continuing the precedence. God save the king.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:08 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
This is going a bit far, but I think it's Art of the Deal stuff in order to start with an extreme position, then get to a compromise.
There is a legitimate argument for modifying the amendment. He just needs to get both houses of Congress and 38 states onboard.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:08 am to Bunk Moreland
My opinion is that Trump is trying to force Congress or the Supreme Court to settle this issue once and for all. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment to mean that all children born within the territory of the united states are citizens did not come from the courts nor from Congressional statute, but from the executive branch. As you well know, executives come and go, and what one executive does, another can undo by the same manner. The Supreme Court has ruled that the children of legal immigrants are citizens, as I believe most Americans agree they should be. The authors of the 14th Amendment argued that Sovereign Indian Tribes and unauthorized resident aliens were not entitled to birthright citizenship.
By Trump altering an administrative determination with an executive order (the proper vehicle to do so), he is inviting a court challenge (because the democrats challenge his every action in court). Trump WANTS a court challenge! He is INVITING one! They will claim he doesn't have the authority to amend the constitution. Trump will argue he is not amending, but interpreting within what the legislature has given him and will ask the Supreme Court to interpret whether his interpretation is reasonable.
Now, if Trump does this by executive order, his case gets a little more difficult because rather than it becoming about his authority to issue such an order (he clearly has that authority), it becomes a question of the content of said order: whether or not the president's interpretation is "correct". That gives the SCOTUS room to interpret it themselves and issue a ruling on what the 14th Amendment means and who is entitled to birthright citizenship.
On the other hand, if one of Trump's "subject matter experts" in the State department were to issue this administrative change in the form of a guidance document and a proposed rule change, then the court would have to examine it as a Chevron deference case: whether the administration's interpretation was "reasonable" rather than "correct". According to the Chevron doctrine, administrative agencies are considered to be subject-matter experts, and when a statute is vague, they are entitled to make their own interpretation. When a conflict arises between the administrative agency and stakeholders, the Chevron doctrine demands that courts give deference to the administrative agency to determine the proper interpretation as long as said interpretation is "reasonable". That means, unless the challenger can prove that no "reasonable" person possibly could have read a statute to mean what the administration says it means, the government wins.
Of course, Congress could fix all of this with one bill, but we all know they won't do that.
By Trump altering an administrative determination with an executive order (the proper vehicle to do so), he is inviting a court challenge (because the democrats challenge his every action in court). Trump WANTS a court challenge! He is INVITING one! They will claim he doesn't have the authority to amend the constitution. Trump will argue he is not amending, but interpreting within what the legislature has given him and will ask the Supreme Court to interpret whether his interpretation is reasonable.
Now, if Trump does this by executive order, his case gets a little more difficult because rather than it becoming about his authority to issue such an order (he clearly has that authority), it becomes a question of the content of said order: whether or not the president's interpretation is "correct". That gives the SCOTUS room to interpret it themselves and issue a ruling on what the 14th Amendment means and who is entitled to birthright citizenship.
On the other hand, if one of Trump's "subject matter experts" in the State department were to issue this administrative change in the form of a guidance document and a proposed rule change, then the court would have to examine it as a Chevron deference case: whether the administration's interpretation was "reasonable" rather than "correct". According to the Chevron doctrine, administrative agencies are considered to be subject-matter experts, and when a statute is vague, they are entitled to make their own interpretation. When a conflict arises between the administrative agency and stakeholders, the Chevron doctrine demands that courts give deference to the administrative agency to determine the proper interpretation as long as said interpretation is "reasonable". That means, unless the challenger can prove that no "reasonable" person possibly could have read a statute to mean what the administration says it means, the government wins.
Of course, Congress could fix all of this with one bill, but we all know they won't do that.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:09 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
It's not amending the constitution. It's clarifying it's language.
Just like a democratic president can “clarify the language” of the second amendment.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:11 am to papasmurf1269
I think it’s funny that leftists don’t think they will end up having the same conversation if they elect an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
If you make the decision as a country to have all of these social programs, eventually you can only tax so much and have to cut down on who receives benefits. Hell, our programs are already strapped.
The inherent problem isn’t citizenship necessarily but entitlements. We have to cut one or the other...
If you make the decision as a country to have all of these social programs, eventually you can only tax so much and have to cut down on who receives benefits. Hell, our programs are already strapped.
The inherent problem isn’t citizenship necessarily but entitlements. We have to cut one or the other...
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am to CommoDawg
quote:
Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US you imbecile. That clause was written for Native American tribes who were not subject to the sovereignty of the US.
Actually that has never been adjudicated by the supreme court.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 gave Citizenship for people in the United States Legally who had established permanent domicile.
Therefore if Trump issues an executive order preventing the granting of Citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, it will force 2 questions before the court.
1) Does the executive or Congress have the plenary responsibility over this matter
2) Can the children of non-citizens born in the US or its territories be granted citizenship if they are here illegally.
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News