Leftists HATE Facts Part II: Trump "Overrides" the Constituion By Executive Order!

@Lila15 They are using a heavily slanted source that is claiming that decision has been misinterpreted.

@Lila15 No need. The Supreme Court does not make legislation and is not infallible...read the Dred Scott decision and get back to me.

President Trump is returning to original intent. And the original intent of the 14th Amendment is clear.

@Abrienda Depending on how you look at it, either Congress rendered Dredd Scott obsolete 9 years later or the States did 11 years later. Since no new law or amendment nullifying the Wong Kim Ark decision has been passed in the 120 years since, nor has any new SCOTUS decision overturned it, odds are low that it was an erroneous one.

@OggggO My point as you have intentionally missed is Supreme Court are not made on Mt. Sinai and are overturn by later courts. It also does not make legislation...and when it tries makes bad legislation.

@Abrienda And yet, both the legislature and later courts have not found that decision to be bad, and they have had more than enough time to do so were it the case.

@Abrienda So if a future Democratic president issued an executive order declaring that the Second Amendment requires gun owners to be members of a "well-regulated militia," meaning only the police and military, that would apparently be acceptable.

Anyway, you're missing the point. Trump has no intention to ever issue an EO ending birthright citizenship. He only said this to upset liberals and to get his base, who think he's the second coming of Christ, to nod their heads and repeat how smart their orange savior is.

And knock off the "Americans don't know their own Constitution." Original intent is only one form of constitutional interpretation. Neil Gorsuch for example is a strict textualist. If Trump does issue this EO, Gorsuch would very likely go with the actual wording of the 14th Amendment, and not the "original intent." Also, as conservative as John Roberts is, the last thing he wants is for the Roberts Court to be remembered as Trump's lackey.

We have had this argument before...and you lost it then, too. If he did issue such an order he would be impeached since the 2nd Amendment is not written the way you interpret it.

Really you just don't know what you are talking about which is why it is so futile to discuss such issues with you. I have posted the "citizenship clause" in the 14th Amendment which expressely forbids the sort of thing President Trump's order does...did you even read it? It is just not worth my time discussing issues with someone who is simply not well educated in the issue at hand and believe their own interpretation has some sort of equal status to the actual facts.

You also seem to have some access insight into the thoughts and feelings of John Roberts. Is that due to your close personal relationship with him or a night on the Quija board?

Its claims like that that make it impossible for me to take you as seriously as you think you should be,

@Abrienda [quote]In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[4] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[5][/quote]

[quote]Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[116] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[117] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[118][119][120] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[121][57][/quote]

[quote]In an analysis of the Wong Kim Ark case written shortly after the decision in 1898, Marshall B. Woodworth laid out the two competing theories of jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause and observed that "[t]he fact that the decision of the court was not unanimous indicates that the question is at least debatable."[146] Woodworth concluded, however, that the Supreme Court's ruling laid the issue to rest, saying that "it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto".[145][/quote]

[quote]Current U.S. law on birthright citizenship (citizenship acquired at birth) acknowledges both citizenship through place of birth (jus soli) and citizenship inherited from parents (jus sanguinis).[9][/quote]

[quote]The Wong Kim Ark court's affirmation of jus soli as the primary rule determining United States citizenship has been cited in several Supreme Court decisions affirming the citizenship of U.S.-born individuals of Chinese or Japanese ancestry.[160][161][162][163] The court's holding that the language of the Constitution should be understood in light of the common law has been cited in numerous Supreme Court decisions dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution or acts of Congress.[164][165][166] The Wong Kim Ark court's understanding of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction was also cited in a 1982 case involving the rights of illegal immigrants.[167]

An unsuccessful effort was made in 1942 by the Native Sons of the Golden West to convince the Supreme Court to revisit and overrule the Wong Kim Ark ruling, in a case (Regan v. King) challenging the citizenship status of roughly 2,600 U.S.-born persons of Japanese ancestry. The plaintiffs' attorney termed Wong Kim Ark "one of the most injurious and unfortunate decisions" ever handed down by the Supreme Court and hoped the new case would give the court "an opportunity to correct itself".[168] A federal district court[169][170] and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals[171] summarily rejected this contention, each citing Wong Kim Ark as a controlling precedent, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[172][/quote]

[quote]The Supreme Court's 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision[189]—in a case involving illegal alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents, and who had no basis for claiming U.S. citizenship)—has also been cited in support of a broad application of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction to illegal aliens and their children.[190][191] A Texas state law had sought to deny such children a public education, and the Texas government had argued that "persons who have entered the United States illegally are not 'within the jurisdiction' of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws."[167] A dictum footnote in the Court's majority opinion remarked that according to Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases subject to the jurisdiction thereof (in the Citizenship Clause) and within its jurisdiction (in the Equal Protection Clause) were essentially equivalent; that both expressions referred primarily to physical presence and not to political allegiance;[116] and that the Wong Kim Ark decision benefited the children of illegal as well as legal aliens.[190] As a result, the court rejected the claim that Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" depended on whether someone had entered the U.S. legally or not.[167][192] Although the four dissenting justices disagreed with the opinion of the Court regarding whether the children in question had a right to a public education, the dissenters agreed with the majority regarding the applicability of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction to illegal aliens.[193] James Ho considers Plyler v. Doe to have "put to rest" any doubt over whether the sweeping language regarding jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark applies to all aliens, even illegal aliens.[7]

The United States Department of State (the federal government agency responsible for international relations) considers U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus to have citizenship at birth. The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual takes the position that this issue was settled by the Wong Kim Ark ruling.[176][/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

@OggggO So what? But at least there is a small sign of improvement...you have discovered Wikipedia, the lazy intellects reference of choice.

@Abrienda You're saying you know more about the law than generations of legal scholars? Including subsequent Supreme Courts [i]and[/i] the State Department?

@Abrienda I see, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on John Roberts, but you know for a fact that if a president issued the second amendment EO I described, he'd be impeached. You don't seem to know that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," not unpopular decisions. Issuing an EO that reinterprets the second amendment isn't illegal.

Your problem is that you're arrogant and unable to have a reasonable discussion. You think everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Why don't you just migrate over to Gab or 4Chan and talk to people who think exactly the way you do?

@Lila15 Where do you think she learned law in the first place? :p

@OggggO Trump University

@Lila15 "Us"? Interesting choice of pronoun,"us"... as in "we who are working together"? I thought it strange that you all arrived in sequence...kinda like cold symptoms. Well if it takes your "us" to deal with me...then I will remember not to treat you as an individual but as member of a pack of...lets see...jackels? Hyennas> WEASELS! That's it!

@Abrienda Oh, please. I'm not working with anyone. If George Soros wants to write me a check to post stuff for him, let me know who to call.

I follow the Politics thread on SW; it's not hard to figure out why I'm here.