An interesting read on President Trump's plan to end birthright citezenship.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-birthright-plan-vs-u-s-constitution-here-s-n926501?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
It is an interesting take, but it doesn't cover the Constitutional authority to issue an executive order on the topic, which, IMO, a court exercising even moderate judicial restraint would do.
Upholding an executive order circumventing Congress on this issue would, IMO, be a really dangerous precedent.
I hate to go there, but this is the classic move of gaining power for dictators, making decisions because of an allegedly dysfunctional legislature.
I really really hope, if he ever does sign such an order, the Court won't condone it on completely separate Constitutional grounds.
Upholding an executive order circumventing Congress on this issue would, IMO, be a really dangerous precedent.
I hate to go there, but this is the classic move of gaining power for dictators, making decisions because of an allegedly dysfunctional legislature.
I really really hope, if he ever does sign such an order, the Court won't condone it on completely separate Constitutional grounds.
Pherick · 41-45, M
@MistyCee This is my thoughts as well. If trump does put out an EO on this, and it makes it to the Supreme Court it should be put down, not for any ruling based on Constitutional interpretation, but that an EO cannot have an impact on the Constitution.
If you want to impact the Constitution, then you change it, or at the very least you pass a law that you think follows it and then let the courts decide.
If you want to impact the Constitution, then you change it, or at the very least you pass a law that you think follows it and then let the courts decide.
katielass · F
Well, there's no question it was intended to cover children of former slaves, but I'm not sure he can do this with the stroke of a pen. And we don't want an odumbo type president who thumbed his nose at the constitution. And I'm not sure Trump believes it either, might be his way of forcing the issue. I think we can all agree that leaving it up to congress means it will never be addressed. This way it will be decided by the court once and for all and if necessary, congress can fix it. The number of "clubs" where foreign women come here for the purpose of having a child who will automatically become a citizen has risen hundreds of percentage points in just the last 10 years. It's way past time to get rid of this stupidity.
Johnson212 · 61-69, M
Will be interesting, always thought something needed to be settled, that phrase all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, f the clause simply omitted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then there would likely be no debate,but they did not so it must be an additional qualifier that need be met in order to be conferred citizenship.
Trump will change the rules, someone will sue over it and it will go up the courts and we will get a ruling.
Trump will change the rules, someone will sue over it and it will go up the courts and we will get a ruling.
Graylight · 51-55, F
Interesting, though there's this: the Constitution is in its spirit inclusive rather than exclusive and the SCOTUS tends to interpret it as such. Were this to go to them - and it has before, where the 14th has always been upheld - it would likely be upheld again and the case would be decided long after Trump is out of office.